Optical and radar data integration for land use and land cover mapping in the Brazilian Amazon

Figures & data

Figure 1. The location of the study area: (a) TM and (b) PALSAR images.

Figure 2. A flowchart of the methodology.

Figure 3. The fusion of SAR and optical images using the PC technique.

1 Descriptions of the land use and land cover classes and number of pixels of the training and validation samples.

Classes	Description	Training sample	Validation sample
Primary Forest – PF	Intact natural forest that has not been disturbed or modified by human activities	8853	2311
Degraded Forest – DF	Primary forest that has suffered fire actions	3500	1000
Intermediate Regeneration – IR	Secondary forest with 8–20 years of regrowth
Old Regeneration – OR	Secondary forest with more than 20 years of regrowth
New Regeneration – NR	Secondary forest with fewer than 8 years of regrowth	674	149
Dirty Pasture – DP	Land used for grazing animals with the presence of trees, shrubs, and invasive species	506	93
Clean Pasture – CP	Land used for grazing animals with low presence of trees, shrubs, and invasive species	1037	196
Fallow Agriculture – FA	Fallow agricultural areas after harvest	778	182
Soybean100 – S100	Soybeans ready for harvest (approximately 100 days after seeding)	360	110
Soybean40 – S40	Soybeans approximately 40 days after seeding	89	27

2 Sets of images to be classified.

	Image set	Description
Original	TM	Bands 1–4, 5, and 7 from the TM image
	PALSAR	The HH, HV amplitude from the PALSAR image
Fusion	PCn TM_HV	The PCn TM image replaced by the HV SAR band for n = 1 or 2
	PCn TM_HH	The PCn TM image replaced by the HH SAR band for n = 1 or 2
	PCn TM_PC 1(HH&HV)	The PCn TM image replaced by PC 1 of the HH, HV SAR bands for n = 1 or 2
Combination	TM_HV	A combination of the TM image with the HV SAR band
	TM_HH	A combination of TM image with the HH SAR band
	TM_HH_HV	A combination of the TM image with the HH, HV SAR bands

Figure 4. The best visual color compositions and their respective classifications of Area 1: (a) TM, (b) PC ₁TM_HH, (c) PC ₂TM_HH, and (d) PC ₁TM_PC ₁(HH&HV).

Figure 5. The best visual color compositions and their respective classifications of Area 2: (a) TM, (b) PC ₁TM_HV, (c) PC ₁TM_PC ₁(HH&HV), and (d) PC ₂TM_PC ₁(HH&HV).

Figure 6. The best visual color compositions and their respective classifications of Area 3: (a) TM, (b) PC ₁TM_HV, (c) PC ₂TM_HV, and (d) PC ₂TM_PC ₁(HH&HV).

Figure 7. The best visual color compositions and their respective classifications of Area 4: (a) TM, (b) PC ₁TM_HH, (c) PC ₁TM_PC ₁(HH&HV), and (d) PC ₂TM_PC ₁(HH&HV).

Figure 8. The confusion matrix of the TM classification.

3 Values of the kappa coefficient of agreement per class, global kappa, and overall accuracies for fused and combined image classifications.

Class	Original images		Fusion			Combination
	TM	PALSAR	PC 1TM_HV (F1)	PC 1TM_HH (F2)	PC 1TM_PC 1(HH&HV) (F3)	TM_HV (C1)	TM_HH (C2)	TM_HH_HV (C3)
Primary Forest	0.907	0.194	0.919	0.914	0.916	0.906	0.918	0.918
DF + OR + IR	0.640	0.049	0.675	0.679	0.680	0.641	0.686	0.685
New Regeneration	0.504	0.222	0.565	0.539	0.573	0.532	0.532	0.552
Dirty Pasture	0.524	0.287	0.608	0.567	0.593	0.624	0.640	0.642
Clean Pasture	0.737	0.470	0.759	0.751	0.740	0.763	0.765	0.741
Fallow Agriculture	0.882	0.839	0.730	0.764	0.756	0.865	0.858	0.877
Soybean100	0.704	0.443	0.689	0.673	0.706	0.733	0.729	0.772
Soybean40	0.545	0.820	0.626	0.645	0.609	0.674	0.708	0.845
Global kappa	0.734	0.165	0.760	0.757	0.762	0.749	0.773	0.777
Variance of kappa (×10^−5)	8.0	9.4	7.4	7.5	7.4	7.8	7.2	7.1
Overall accuracy	0.832	0.370	0.849	0.847	0.851	0.842	0.857	0.860
Statistically worse than TM image classification			Statistically equal to TM image classification			Statistically better than TM image classification

Figure 9. The confusion matrix of the PALSAR classification.

Figure 10. Kappa values per class for classifications with combination of bands.

4 The producer (PA) and user (UA) accuracies for TM and TM_HH_HV classifications.

Class	TM		TM_HH_HV
	PA	UA	PA	UA
Primary Forest	0.872	0.960	0.890	0.964
DF + IR + OR	0.826	0.728	0.853	0.762
New Regeneration	0.779	0.523	0.812	0.568
Dirty Pasture	0.914	0.535	0.699	0.650
Clean Pasture	0.597	0.750	0.827	0.753
Fallow Agriculture	0.604	0.887	0.703	0.883
Soybean100	0.855	0.712	0.827	0.778
Soybean40	0.852	0.548	0.815	0.846
Statistically worse than TM image classification		Statistically equal to TM image classification	Statistically better than TM image classification

Figure 11. The confusion matrix of the TM_HH_HV classification.

Figure 12. Classified images: (a) PALSAR, (b) TM, and (c) TM_HH_HV.