Improving semi-automated glacier mapping with a multi-method approach: Applications in central Asia

35Citations
Citations of this article
76Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Studies of glaciers generally require precise glacier outlines. Where these are not available, extensive manual digitization in a geographic information system (GIS) must be performed, as current algorithms struggle to delineate glacier areas with debris cover or other irregular spectral profiles. Although several approaches have improved upon spectral band ratio delineation of glacier areas, none have entered wide use due to complexity or computational intensity. In this study, we present and apply a glacier mapping algorithm in Central Asia which delineates both clean glacier ice and debris-covered glacier tongues. The algorithm is built around the unique velocity and topographic characteristics of glaciers and further leverages spectral and spatial relationship data. We found that the algorithm misclassifies between 2 and 10 % of glacier areas, as compared to a ∼ 750 glacier control data set, and can reliably classify a given Landsat scene in 3-5 min. The algorithm does not completely solve the difficulties inherent in classifying glacier areas from remotely sensed imagery but does represent a significant improvement over purely spectral-based classification schemes, such as the band ratio of Landsat 7 bands three and five or the normalized difference snow index. The main caveats of the algorithm are (1) classification errors at an individual glacier level, (2) reliance on manual intervention to separate connected glacier areas, and (3) dependence on fidelity of the input Landsat data.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Smith, T., Bookhagen, B., & Cannon, F. (2015). Improving semi-automated glacier mapping with a multi-method approach: Applications in central Asia. Cryosphere, 9(5), 1747–1759. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-1747-2015

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 37

63%

Researcher 16

27%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

7%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Earth and Planetary Sciences 32

59%

Environmental Science 14

26%

Engineering 5

9%

Computer Science 3

6%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free