Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

James E. Vogelmann

Publications and source records attributed to James E. Vogelmann.

22 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2001

Effects of Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper and Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper plus radiometric and geometric calibrations and corrections on landscape characterization

The Thematic Mapper (TM) instruments onboard Landsats 4 and 5 provide high-quality imagery appropriate for many different applications, including land cover mapping, landscape ecology, and change detection. Precise calibration was considered to be critical to the success of the Landsat 7 mission and, thus, issues of calibration were given high priority during the development of the Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+). Data sets from the Landsat 5 TM are not routinely corrected for a number of radiometric and geometric artifacts, including memory effect, gain/bias, and interfocal plane misalignment. In the current investigation, the effects of correcting vs. not correcting these factors were investigated for several applications. Gain/bias calibrations were found to have a greater impact on most applications than did memory effect calibrations. Correcting interfocal plane offsets was found to have a moderate effect on applications. On June 2, 1999, Landsats 5 and 7 data were acquired nearly simultaneously over a study site in the Niobrara, NE area. Field radiometer data acquired at that site were used to facilitate crosscalibrations of Landsats 5 and 7 data. Current findings and results from previous investigations indicate that the internal calibrator of Landsat 5 TM tracked instrument gain well until 1988. After this, the internal calibrator diverged from the data derived from vicarious calibrations. Results from this study also indicate very good agreement between prelaunch measurements and vicarious calibration data for all Landsat 7 reflective bands except Band 4. Values are within about 3.5% of each other, except for Band 4, which differs by 10%. Coefficient of variation (CV) values derived from selected targets in the imagery were also analyzed. The Niobrara Landsat 7 imagery was found to have lower CV values than Landsat 5 data, implying that lower levels of noise characterize Landsat 7 data than current Landsat 5 data. It was also found that following radiometric normalization, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) imagery and classification products of Landsats 5 and 7 were very similar. This implies that data from the two sensors can be used to measure and monitor the same landscape phenomena and that Landsats 5 and 7 data can be used interchangeably with proper caution. In addition, it was found that difference imagery produced using Landsat 7 ETM+ data are of excellent quality.

Remote Sensing of Environment↗
USGS1998

Regional land cover characterization using Landsat thematic mapper data and ancillary data sources

As part of the activities of the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Interagency Consortium, an intermediate-scale land cover data set is being generated for the conterminous United States. This effort is being conducted on a region-by-region basis using U.S. Standard Federal Regions. To date, land cover data sets have been generated for Federal Regions 3 (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware) and 2 (New York and New Jersey). Classification work is currently under way in Federal Region 4 (the southeastern United States), and land cover mapping activities have been started in Federal Regions 5 (the Great Lakes region) and 1 (New England). It is anticipated that a land cover data set for the conterminous United States will be completed by the end of 1999. A standard land cover classification legend is used, which is analogous to and compatible with other classification schemes. The primary MRLC regional classification scheme contains 23 land cover classes. The primary source of data for the project is the Landsat thematic mapper (TM) sensor. For each region, TM scenes representing both leaf-on and leaf-off conditions are acquired, preprocessed, and georeferenced to MRLC specifications. Mosaicked data are clustered using unsupervised classification, and individual clusters are labeled using aerial photographs. Individual clusters that represent more than one land cover unit are split using spatial modeling with multiple ancillary spatial data layers (most notably, digital elevation model, population, land use and land cover, and wetlands information). This approach yields regional land cover information suitable for a wide array of applications, including landscape metric analyses, land management, land cover change studies, and nutrient and pesticide runoff modeling.

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment↗
USGS1998

Regional characterization of land cover using multiple sources of data

Many organizations require accurate intermediate-scale land-cover information for many applications, including modeling nutrient and pesticide runoff, understanding spatial patterns of biodiversity, land-use planning, and policy development. While many techniques have been successfully used to classify land cover in relatively small regions, there are substantial obstacles in applying these methods to large, multiscene regions. The purpose of this study was to generate and evaluate a large region land-cover classification product using a multiple-layer land-characteristics database approach. To derive land-cover information, mosaicked Landsat thematic mapper (TM) scenes were analyzed in conjunction with digital elevation data (and derived slope, aspect, and shaded relief), population census information, Defense Meteorological Satellite Program city lights data, prior land-use and land-cover data, digital line graph data, and National Wetlands Inventory data. Both leaf-on and leaf-off TM data sets were analyzed. The study area was U.S. Federal Region III, which includes the states of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia. The general procedure involved (1) generating mosaics of multiple scenes of leaves-on TM data using histogram equalization methods; (2) clustering mosaics into 100 spectral classes using unsupervised classification; (3) interpreting and labeling spectral classes into approximately 15 land-cover categories (analogous to Anderson Level 1 and 2 classes) using aerial photographs; (4) developing decision-making rules and models using from one to several ancillary data layers to resolve confusion in spectral classes that represented two or more targeted land-cover categories; and (5) incorporating data from other sources (for example, leaf-off TM data and National Wetlands Inventory data) to yield a final land-cover product. Although standard accuracy assessments were not done, a series of consistency checks using available sources of land-cover information were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach for generating accurate land-cover information for large regions.

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing↗