Fechar

1. Identificação
Tipo de ReferênciaArtigo em Revista Científica (Journal Article)
Sitemtc-m21d.sid.inpe.br
Código do Detentorisadg {BR SPINPE} ibi 8JMKD3MGPCW/3DT298S
Identificador8JMKD3MGP3W34T/475SMR2
Repositóriosid.inpe.br/mtc-m21d/2022/06.22.12.45   (acesso restrito)
Última Atualização2022:06.22.12.45.27 (UTC) simone
Repositório de Metadadossid.inpe.br/mtc-m21d/2022/06.22.12.45.27
Última Atualização dos Metadados2023:01.03.16.46.08 (UTC) administrator
DOI10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2022-665-2022
ISSN1682-1750
Chave de CitaçãoMartinezAdTuCoAlFe:2022:CoClRe
TítuloA comparison of cloud removal methods for deforestation monitoring in Amazon rainforest
Ano2022
MêsJune
Data de Acesso19 abr. 2024
Tipo de Trabalhojournal article
Tipo SecundárioPRE PI
Número de Arquivos1
Tamanho10783 KiB
2. Contextualização
Autor1 Martinez, J. A. C.
2 Adarme, M. X. O.
3 Turnes, J. N.
4 Costa, Gilson A. O. P.
5 Almeida, Claudio Aparecido de
6 Feitosa, Raul Q.
Grupo1
2
3
4
5 DIPE1-COGPI-INPE-MCTI-GOV-BR
Afiliação1 Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio)
2 Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio)
3 University of Waterloo
4 Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
5 Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE)
6 Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio)
Endereço de e-Mail do Autor1 jchamorro@aluno.puc-rio.br
2 mortega@aluno.puc-rio.br
3 jnoaturn@uwaterloo.ca
4 gilson.costa@ime.uerj.br
5 claudio.almeida@inpe.br
6 raul@ele.puc-rio.br
RevistaInternational Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences
Volume43
NúmeroB3
Páginas665-671
Histórico (UTC)2022-06-22 12:46:18 :: simone -> administrator :: 2022
2022-08-29 18:41:25 :: administrator -> simone :: 2022
2022-12-19 18:53:49 :: simone -> administrator :: 2022
2023-01-03 16:46:08 :: administrator -> simone :: 2022
3. Conteúdo e estrutura
É a matriz ou uma cópia?é a matriz
Estágio do Conteúdoconcluido
Transferível1
Tipo do ConteúdoExternal Contribution
Tipo de Versãopublisher
Palavras-ChaveCloud Removal
Deep learning
Deforestation
Optical imagery
SAR-optical Data fusion
ResumoDeforestation in tropical rainforests is a major source of carbon dioxide emissions, an important driver of climate change. For decades, the Brazilian government has maintained monitoring programs for deforestation detection in the Brazilian Legal Amazon area based on remotely sensed optical images in a protocol that involves considerable efforts of visual interpretation. However, the Amazon region is covered with clouds for most of the year, and deforestation assessment can rely only on images acquired in the dry season when cloud-free images are more likely to capture. One possibility to lessen that restriction and enable deforestation detection throughout the year is to synthesize cloud-free optical images from corresponding SAR images, which are only marginally influenced by atmospheric conditions. This work compares a set of such image synthesis methods, considering deforestation detection in the Amazon forest as the target application. Specifically, we evaluate three deep learning methods for cloud removal in Sentinel-2 images: a conditional Generative Adversarial Network (cGAN) based on the pix2pixi architecture; an extension of that method, which uses atrous convolutions (Atrous cGANi) to enhance fine image details; and a non-generative method (DSen2-CRi) based on residual networks. In the evaluation, we assess both the quality of the generated images and the accuracy obtained when performing deforestation detection from those images. We further compare those methods with an image aggregation tool available in Google Earth Engine (GEE Tooli), which creates cloud-free mosaics from sequences of images acquired at nearby dates. In this study, we considered two sites in the Brazilian Amazon, characterized by distinct vegetation and deforestation patterns. In terms of the quality metrics and classification accuracy, the Atrous cGANi was the best performing deep learning method. The GEE Tooli outperformed all those methods when dealing with images from the dry season but turned out to be the poorest performing method in the wet season.
ÁreaSRE
Conteúdo da Pasta docacessar
Conteúdo da Pasta sourcenão têm arquivos
Conteúdo da Pasta agreement
agreement.html 22/06/2022 09:45 1.0 KiB 
4. Condições de acesso e uso
Idiomaen
Arquivo Alvoisprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2022-665-2022.pdf
Grupo de Usuáriossimone
Grupo de Leitoresadministrator
simone
Visibilidadeshown
Permissão de Leituradeny from all and allow from 150.163
Permissão de Atualizaçãonão transferida
5. Fontes relacionadas
Unidades Imediatamente Superiores8JMKD3MGPCW/46L2FGP
Lista de Itens Citandosid.inpe.br/bibdigital/2022/04.04.04.47 1
DivulgaçãoWEBSCI; PORTALCAPES; COMPENDEX.
Acervo Hospedeirourlib.net/www/2021/06.04.03.40
6. Notas
Campos Vaziosalternatejournal archivingpolicy archivist callnumber copyholder copyright creatorhistory descriptionlevel e-mailaddress format isbn label lineage mark mirrorrepository nextedition notes orcid parameterlist parentrepositories previousedition previouslowerunit progress project resumeid rightsholder schedulinginformation secondarydate secondarykey secondarymark session shorttitle sponsor subject tertiarymark tertiarytype url
7. Controle da descrição
e-Mail (login)simone
atualizar 


Fechar