| Summary: | This paper examines the issues that arise in the use of visual interpretation of Landsat data during the analysis, classification and mapping of the natural vegetation of the semi-arid Northern Cape. Initial research involved the classifying and mapping of the vegetation using conventional methods. A vegetation map, accompanying legend and descriptive key were produced. The problems encountered during this process, and the constraints of manpower, time and funds, stimulated the investigation of Landsat imagery as a means of improving the speed and accuracy of vegetation classification and mapping. A study area comprising one Landsat scene and which met certain requirements was selected: a) The area had already been surveyed and mapped at a scale of 1:250 000. b) As many vegetation units as possible were included. c) There was maximum diversity, complexity and variability in terms of soil, geology and terrain morphology. Initially a suitable mapping scale was selected, viz. 1:250 000, as it met the requirements of nature conservation authorities and agricultural planners. The scales of survey and remote sensing were based on this. The basic unit of survey was the 1:50 000 topographical map and satellite imagery at a scale of 1:250 000 was found to meet the requirements of reconnaissance level mapping. The usefulness of Landsat imagery was markedly affected by the quality of image production and enhancement. Optimum image production was vitally important and to this end, interaction between the user and the operations engineer at the Satellite Applications Centre, Hartebeeshoek was essential. All images used, were edge-enhanced and systematically corrected. While these procedures were costly, they proved to be fundamental to the success of the investigation. Precision geometric correction was not required for reconnaissance level investigation. The manual superimposition of the UTM grid, using ground control points from 1:250 000 topographical maps, proved to be accurate and convenient. Pattern recognition on single-band, panchromatic imagery was difficult. The scene lacked crispness and contrast, and it was evident that black and white imagery did not satisfy the objectives of the study. Three-band false colour composite imagery was superior to single-band imagery in terms of clarity and number of cover classes. The addition of colour undoubtedly facilitated visual interpretation. False colour composite imagery was investigated further to establish which year, season and possibly time of season would best suit the objectives of the investigation. It was found that the environmental parameters affecting reflectance are relatively stable over time and it was not necessary to acquire imagery of the same year as field surveys. However, the year of imagery should be chosen so that similar climatic conditions prevail. While, in certain instances, imagery captured during winter had advantages in separating complex mosaics, summer imagery was superior in most respects. Furthermore, given "normal" climatic conditions, the ideal period during which there was maximum contrast between and within ground classes, and thus spectral classes, was narrowed to mid-January to mid-April. Units which were acceptably heterogeneous (relatively homogeneous) in terms of reflectance levels were delineated manually on the image. This delineation was done at three levels of complexity and the units were compared with the vegetation map. A series of field trips aided the interpretation of the images, especially where discrepancies occurred between the map and the image. In general, there was a close degree of correspondence between the prepared vegetation map and the delineated image. Field investigation revealed the image units to be more accurate than those on the vegetation map, and the image served to highlight the inadequacies inherent in classifying and mapping vegetation of extensive areas with limited resources.
|
|---|
