Journal of Geographical Sciences >
Measurement of vegetation parameters and error analysis based on Monte Carlo method
Author: Liang Boyi, E-mail: liangboyi@pku.edu.cn
Received date: 2017-06-30
Accepted date: 2017-12-08
Online published: 2018-06-20
Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.41171262
Copyright
In this paper we bring up a Monte Carlo theory based method to measure the ground vegetation parameters, and make quantitative description of the error. The leaf area index is used as the example in the study. Its mean and variance stability at different scales or in different time is verified using both the computer simulation and the statistics of remotely sensed images. And the error of Monte Carlo sampling method is analyzed based on the normal distribution theory and the central-limit theorem. The results show that the variance of leaf area index in the same area is stable at certain scales or in the same time of different years. The difference between experimental results and theoretical ones is small. The significance of this study is to establish a measurement procedure of ground vegetation parameters with an error control system.
Key words: remote sensing; vegetation parameter; error analysis; GLASS LAI
LIANG Boyi , LIU Suhong . Measurement of vegetation parameters and error analysis based on Monte Carlo method[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018 , 28(6) : 819 -832 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-018-1507-8
Figure 1 Vegetation scenarios simulated by computer and their leaf area index frequency curves (a. low level; b. median level; c. high level) |
Figure 2 LAI variations in computer simulation |
Figure 3 GLASS LAI of the study area |
Figure 4 Frequency curves of GLASS LAI (a. low level. b. median level. c. high level) |
Figure 5 Verification of normal distribution (a. low level of computer simulation; b. low level of GLASS LAI; c. median level of computer simulation; d. median level of GLASS LAI; e. high level of computer simulation; f. high level of GLASS LAI) |
Table 1 Verification of mean and variation |
Sampling quantity | 30 | 50 | 70 | 100 | 150 | 200 | 300 | 500 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low level | Computer simulation | Variation | Theoretical value | 0.049 | 0.029 | 0.021 | 0.015 | 0.010 | 0.007 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
Real value | 0.056 | 0.032 | 0.022 | 0.016 | 0.011 | 0.008 | 0.006 | 0.003 | |||
Mean | Theoretical value | 2.535 | 2.535 | 2.535 | 2.535 | 2.535 | 2.535 | 2.535 | 2.535 | ||
Real value | 2.531 | 2.546 | 2.541 | 2.536 | 2.537 | 2.534 | 2.540 | 2.537 | |||
GLASS LAI | Variation | Theoretical value | 0.028 | 0.017 | 0.012 | 0.008 | 0.006 | 0.004 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
Real value | 0.031 | 0.018 | 0.013 | 0.009 | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |||
Mean | Theoretical value | 1.234 | 1.234 | 1.234 | 1.234 | 1.234 | 1.234 | 1.234 | 1.234 | ||
Real value | 1.243 | 1.240 | 1.228 | 1.231 | 1.230 | 1.233 | 1.231 | 1.231 | |||
Median level | Computer simulation | Variation | Theoretical value | 0.212 | 0.127 | 0.091 | 0.064 | 0.042 | 0.032 | 0.021 | 0.013 |
Real value | 0.245 | 0.153 | 0.105 | 0.076 | 0.047 | 0.035 | 0.024 | 0.015 | |||
Mean | Theoretical value | 5.086 | 5.086 | 5.086 | 5.086 | 5.086 | 5.086 | 5.086 | 5.086 | ||
Real value | 5.073 | 5.091 | 5.097 | 5.079 | 5.083 | 5.084 | 5.087 | 5.091 | |||
GLASS LAI | Variation | Theoretical value | 0.039 | 0.023 | 0.017 | 0.012 | 0.008 | 0.006 | 0.004 | 0.002 | |
Real value | 0.038 | 0.024 | 0.016 | 0.011 | 0.008 | 0.006 | 0.004 | 0.002 | |||
Mean | Theoretical value | 2.115 | 2.115 | 2.115 | 2.115 | 2.115 | 2.115 | 2.115 | 2.115 | ||
Real value | 2.099 | 2.122 | 2.118 | 2.117 | 2.113 | 2.115 | 2.115 | 2.115 | |||
High level | Computer simulation | Variation | Theoretical value | 0.495 | 0.297 | 0.212 | 0.148 | 0.099 | 0.074 | 0.049 | 0.030 |
Real value | 0.532 | 0.352 | 0.270 | 0.176 | 0.122 | 0.085 | 0.054 | 0.035 | |||
Mean | Theoretical value | 8.086 | 8.086 | 8.086 | 8.086 | 8.086 | 8.086 | 8.086 | 8.086 | ||
Real value | 8.089 | 8.096 | 8.087 | 8.081 | 8.103 | 8.090 | 8.081 | 8.096 | |||
GLASS LAI | Variation | Theoretical value | 0.056 | 0.033 | 0.024 | 0.017 | 0.011 | 0.008 | 0.006 | 0.003 | |
Real value | 0.047 | 0.030 | 0.020 | 0.015 | 0.009 | 0.007 | 0.005 | 0.003 | |||
Mean | Theoretical value | 4.498 | 4.498 | 4.498 | 4.498 | 4.498 | 4.498 | 4.498 | 4.498 | ||
Real value | 4.493 | 4.498 | 4.501 | 4.503 | 4.504 | 4.505 | 4.502 | 4.500 |
Figure 6 Error distribution (a. three dimensional graph; b. orthographic projection) |
Table 2 Statistics of error distribution |
Sampling quantity | 0-3% | 3%-5% | 5%-10% | 10%-20% | >20% | Average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 | 3.07% | 0.18% | 0.75% | 3.24% | 0.76% | 1.60% |
50 | 1.95% | 1.60% | 1.45% | 1.86% | 0.24% | 1.42% |
70 | 3.33% | 2.34% | 1.94% | 3.07% | 0.66% | 2.27% |
100 | 2.82% | 2.84% | 1.35% | 1.36% | 0.03% | 1.68% |
150 | 3.20% | 0.95% | 1.59% | 0.52% | 1.57% | |
200 | 3.97% | 1.55% | 2.12% | 0.30% | 1.99% | |
300 | 3.31% | 1.96% | 1.32% | 0.03% | 1.66% | |
500 | 5.99% | 3.75% | 2.24% | 3.99% |
Figure 7 Error distribution under different sampling quantities (a. 30; b. 50; c. 70; d. 100; e. 150; f. 200; g. 300; h. 500) |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
|
[35] |
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
|
[38] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |