Discrimination of crown closure of forest ecosystems using different remotely sensed data: a case study of Kızılcasu planning unit

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the study area.

Figure 2. The methodological workflow.

Figure 3. Crown closure map produced from (a) forest cover type map and (b) Landsat TM image.

Table 1. Changes in crown closure classes in forest cover type map and Landsat TM image, and spatial analysis results.

	Forest Cover Type Map		Landsat TM		Difference	Spatial analysis
Crown closure class (criteria: % cover)	ha	%	ha	%	(+/-)	ha*	%
1 (low coverage: 11%–40%)	358.6	4.5	3431.4	43.2	−3072.8	140.4	4.1
2 (medium coverage: 41%–70%)	960.4	12.1	602.4	7.6	358.0	110.0	18.3
3 (full coverage: 71%–100%)	4617.2	58.1	2403.4	30.2	2213.8	1485.4	61.8
Other (degraded forest, treeless area, and agriculture)	2013.8	25.3	1512.8	19.0	501.0	900.7	59.5
Total	7950.0	100.0	7950.0	100.0	1.4	2636.5	33.2

Note: *The area that is the same spatial configuration in both forest cover type map and Landsat TM image.

Figure 4. Crown closure map produced from (a) forest cover type map and (b) fuzzy classification (Landsat TM image).

Table 2. Changes in crown closure classes in forest cover type map and fuzzy classification (Landsat TM image) and spatial analysis results.

	Forest Cover Type Map		Fuzzy classification		Difference	Spatial analysis
Crown closure class (criteria: % cover)	ha	%	ha	%	(+/-)	ha*	%
1 (low coverage: 11%–40%)	358.6	4.5	473.4	5.9	–114.8	14.8	3.1
2 (medium coverage: 41%–70%)	960.4	12.1	1153.3	14.5	–192.9	170.8	14.8
3 (full coverage: 71%–100%)	4617.2	58.1	4639.5	58.4	–22.3	2783.9	60.0
Other (degraded forest, treeless area, and agriculture)	2013.8	25.3	1683.8	21.2	33.0	406.0	24.1
Total	7950.0	100.0	7950.0	100.0	1.4	3375.5	42.5

Note: *The area that is the same spatial configuration in both forest cover type map and Landsat TM image.

Figure 5. Crown closure map produced from (a) forest cover type map and (b) QuickBird image.

Table 3. Changes in crown closure class in forest cover type map and QuickBird image, and spatial analysis results.

	Forest Cover Type Map		QuickBird		Difference	Spatial analysis
Crown closure class (criteria: % cover)	ha	%	ha	%	(+/-)	ha*	%
1 (low coverage: 11%–40%)	358.6	4.5	218.9	2.3	139.7	5.0	2.3
2 (medium coverage: 41%–70%)	960.4	12.1	1579.9	19.9	−619.5	530.5	33.6
3 (full coverage: 71%–100%)	4617.2	58.1	4853.7	61.1	−236.5	3603.4	74.2
Other (degraded forest, treeless area, and agriculture)	2013.8	25.3	1297.5	16.7	716.3	1169.4	90.1
Total	7950.0	100.0	7950.0	100.0	0	5308.3	66.8

Note: *The area that is the same spatial configuration in both forest cover type map and QuickBird image.

Figure 6. Comparisons of spatial analysis with crown closures and in Landsat TM image.

Figure 7. Comparisons of spatial analysis with crown closures and in fuzzy classification (Landsat TM image).

Figure 8. Comparisons of spatial analysis with crown closures and in QuickBird image.