Spectral Unmixing Applied to Desert Soils for the - Naval ...
Spectral Unmixing Applied to Desert Soils for the - Naval ... Spectral Unmixing Applied to Desert Soils for the - Naval ...
While the lower value would initially seem a setback, remember a larger pixel size means the same feature will occupy a smaller percentage of the pixel so this result is actually within the predicted range. As Figure 31 illustrates, the results were actually better with the larger resolution image for this particular endmember. Upon inspection of Google Earth imagery of the site, dirt sides of a paved road, what looked like ridgeline trails, dirt roads, dirt parking areas, and what appear to be ATV roads that look like drainages in the actual data set all had positive matches to the target material ranging from 4–9%. 2. Adjacent to Tread Endmember The adjacent to tread endmember collect also yielded the close to expected results. Areas with the MF scores between 7 and 49 (49 was the highest yielded percentage value) are shown in red (Figure 32). Figure 32. The image shows the MF vs infeasibility scatterplot and target material image of the user supplied adjacent to tread endmember in the f110512t01p00r07 data set. Detected target material corresponds with red areas (regions with highest MF score and lowest infeasibility) suggesting they are the best matches. 64
The target material shows up in various regions associated with what appears to be steeper terrain and the sides of drainages where unconsolidated material often appears; corresponding to the conditions of the material during collection. This endmember was given a slightly different margin for MF and infeasibility scores (closer to 5 and 10, respectively) because unconsolidated material is expected to be mixed with other material such as vegetation and different mineral mixtures. Therefore, you would expect the pixel percentages to potentially be lower. For the repeatability test, the f110512t01p00r08 data set also had positive matches to targets. In this test, however, there were significantly fewer pixels identified with feasible mixtures (Figure 33). Since there were so few pixels identified under the standard ranges, the scatter plot class was increased to encompass MF scores to 52 (the highest possible range, and as low as 5. Even then most of the pixels were concentrated in certain areas rather than distributed throughout the imagery as seen in the f110512t01p00r07 data set. This is a good result however, considering the terrain is very flat in most of this image. Areas where the endmember corresponds to flat areas appear to be areas of runoff in both the imagery and looking at Google Earth. The high concentrations of areas determined to be target material are again associated with regions of steep terrain where you would expect loosely consolidated material. The majority of those regions are located, in most instances, around the edges of the landscape features depicted in Figure 33. These main imagery features appear to be highly lithified rock structures in the imagery and are confirmed as such to the greatest possible extent using Google Earth. The areas where the target material has been identified do appear to be steeper regions with less consolidated surface material as well as deposits at the base of the structures. 65
- Page 33 and 34: Collins et al. (1997) was able to s
- Page 35 and 36: These purposes include, but are not
- Page 37 and 38: III. DESERT ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTI
- Page 39 and 40: sagebrush of Utah, Montana, and the
- Page 41 and 42: in desert regions include argids, o
- Page 43 and 44: 2. Biological Soil Crusts (BSCs) Bi
- Page 45 and 46: 2004), especially in cases where ma
- Page 47 and 48: IV. STUDY SITES The focus area of t
- Page 50 and 51: Figure 13. This figure illustrates
- Page 52 and 53: Following the uplift that occurred
- Page 54 and 55: the Mazourka Canyon OHV park betwee
- Page 56 and 57: wavelengths being analyzed to obtai
- Page 58 and 59: 2. Field Spectroscopy An Analytical
- Page 60 and 61: A spectral library was then built a
- Page 62 and 63: after atmospherically correcting th
- Page 64 and 65: where: is the mean corrected and no
- Page 66 and 67: also be seen in Figure 23. The leve
- Page 68 and 69: Figure 24. This figure is a compari
- Page 70 and 71: Figure 25. This figure shows ASD co
- Page 72 and 73: Looking at Figure 25 it is apparent
- Page 74 and 75: A. IMAGERY DERIVED ENDMEMBERS The i
- Page 76 and 77: Figure 28. The above shows some of
- Page 78 and 79: spectrometer, reflectance values we
- Page 80 and 81: such an inference can be made (Ben-
- Page 82 and 83: While this is lower than the hoped
- Page 86 and 87: Figure 33. This figure shows the ad
- Page 88 and 89: Inset C of Figure 35 is the same da
- Page 90 and 91: However, the presences of BSCs are
- Page 92 and 93: A B C Figure 37. Inset A shows the
- Page 94 and 95: A B C Figure 38. Inset A shows a co
- Page 96 and 97: differences in the studies by other
- Page 98 and 99: small concentrations making them un
- Page 100 and 101: area making it possible to tell wha
- Page 102 and 103: Clark, R. N., Swayze, G. A., Livo,
- Page 104 and 105: Kruse, F. A., Boardman, J. W., and
- Page 106 and 107: Sharp, R. P., and Glazner, A. F., (
- Page 108: INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 1. Defens
While <strong>the</strong> lower value would initially seem a setback, remember a larger pixel<br />
size means <strong>the</strong> same feature will occupy a smaller percentage of <strong>the</strong> pixel so this result is<br />
actually within <strong>the</strong> predicted range. As Figure 31 illustrates, <strong>the</strong> results were actually<br />
better with <strong>the</strong> larger resolution image <strong>for</strong> this particular endmember. Upon inspection of<br />
Google Earth imagery of <strong>the</strong> site, dirt sides of a paved road, what looked like ridgeline<br />
trails, dirt roads, dirt parking areas, and what appear <strong>to</strong> be ATV roads that look like<br />
drainages in <strong>the</strong> actual data set all had positive matches <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> target material ranging<br />
from 4–9%.<br />
2. Adjacent <strong>to</strong> Tread Endmember<br />
The adjacent <strong>to</strong> tread endmember collect also yielded <strong>the</strong> close <strong>to</strong> expected<br />
results. Areas with <strong>the</strong> MF scores between 7 and 49 (49 was <strong>the</strong> highest yielded<br />
percentage value) are shown in red (Figure 32).<br />
Figure 32. The image shows <strong>the</strong> MF vs infeasibility scatterplot and target material<br />
image of <strong>the</strong> user supplied adjacent <strong>to</strong> tread endmember in <strong>the</strong><br />
f110512t01p00r07 data set. Detected target material corresponds with red<br />
areas (regions with highest MF score and lowest infeasibility) suggesting<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are <strong>the</strong> best matches.<br />
64
Change language