Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 766

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hierarchical mapping of annual global land cover 2001 to present: The MODIS Collection 6 Land Cover product

Open access
Sulla-Menashe, Damien, Gray, Josh M., Abercrombie, S. Parker, Friedl, Mark A.·2019·Remote Sensing of Environment

Abstract

Abstract Land cover and land use maps provide an important basis for characterizing the ecological state and biophysical properties of Earth's land areas. The Collection 5 MODIS Global Land Cover Type product, initially released in 2010, was produced at annual time steps and has been widely used in the land science community. In this paper we describe refinements and improvements, in both the algorithm and the resulting map data sets, that have been implemented in the MODIS Collection 6 Global Land Cover Type product. Unlike the Collection 5 product, which was based on the 17-class International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) legend, the Collection 6 algorithm uses a hierarchical classification model where the classes included in each level of the hierarchy reflect structured distinctions between land cover properties. The resulting suite of nested classifications is combined to create eight distinct classification schemes including the five legacy schemes included in Collection 5, and three new legends based on the FAO-Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) that distinguish between land cover, land use, and surface hydrologic state. The Collection 6 algorithm also incorporates a state-space multitemporal modeling framework based on hidden Markov models that reduce spurious land cover changes introduced by classification uncertainty in individual years. Among other changes, relative to Collection 5, the Collection 6 product includes less area mapped as forests, open shrublands, and cropland/natural vegetation mosaics, and more area mapped as woodlands and grasslands. Accuracy assessment indicates that the Collection 6 product has an overall accuracy of 73.6% for the primary LCCS layer and that the amount of spurious land cover change has been substantially reduced in Collection 6 relative to Collection 5 (1.6% in C6 and 11.4% in C5).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rse.2018.12.013

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 766

Metadata

Authors
Sulla-Menashe, D., Gray, J. M., Abercrombie, S. P., & Friedl, M. A.
Venue
Remote Sensing of Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
222
Pages
183-194
ISSN
0034-4257 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2906848991
Cited by
766
References
11
FWCI
51.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.