Evaluation of the 2010 MODIS Collection 5.1 Land Cover Type Product over China

Although the MODIS Collection 5.1 Land Cover Type (MODIS v5.1 LCT) product is one of the most recent global land cover datasets and has the shortest updating cycle, evaluations regarding this collection have not been reported. Given the importance of evaluating global land cover data for producers and potential users, the 2010 MODIS v5.1 LCT product IGBP (International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme) layer was evaluated based on two grid maps at scales of 100-m and 500-m,which were derived by rasterizing the 2010 data from the national land use/cover database of China (NLUD-C). This comparison was conducted based on a new legend consisting of nine classes constructed based on the definitions of classes in the IGBP and NLUD-C legends. The overall accuracies of the aggregated classification data were 64.62% and 66.42% at the sub-pixel and pixel scales, respectively. These accuracies differed significantly in different regions. Specifically, high-quality data were obtained more easily for regions with a single land cover type, such as Xinjiang province and the northeast plain of China. The lowest accuracies were obtained for the middle of China, including Ningxia, Shaanxi, Chongqing, Yunnan and Guizhou. At the sub-pixel scale, relatively high producer and user accuracies were obtained for cropland, grass and barren regions; the highest producer accuracy was obtained for forests, and the highest user accuracy was obtained for water bodies. Shrublands and wetlands were associated with low producer and user accuracies at the sub-pixel and pixel scales, of less than 10%. Based on dominant-type reference data, the errors were classified as mixed-pixel errors and labeling errors. Labeling errors primarily originated from misclassification between grassland and barren lands. Mixed pixel errors increased as the pixel diversity increased and as the percentage of dominant-type sub-pixels decreased. Overall, mixed pixels were sources of error for most land cover types other than grassland and barren lands; whereas labeling errors were more prevalent than mixed pixel errors when considering all of the land cover data over China, due to the large amount of misclassification between the pure pixels of grassland and barren lands. Next, the accuracy of cropland/natural vegetation mosaics was assessed based on the qualitative (a mosaic of croplands, forests, shrublands, and grasslands) and quantitative (no single component composes more than 60% of the landscape) parts in the definition, which resulted in accuracies of 91.43% and less than 19.26%, respectively. These results are summarized with their implications for the development of the next generation of MCD12Q1 data and with suggestions for potential users of MCD12Q1 v5.1