International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol XXXV, Part B-YF. Istanbul 2004 
Visible blue-green reflectance(0.45-0.52um) 
0,07 
0,06 
0,05 
0,04 
0,03 
0,02 
0,01 
Shrub 
Bamboo 
Primary forest 
Secondary forest 
Rubber 
Teak 
Indigenous plant. 
Acacia 
Visible green reflectance(0.53-0.6 11m) 
0,1 
0,08 
0,06 
0,04 
0,02 
  
Shrub 
Bamboo 
Primary forest 
Rubber 
Teak 
Acacia 
Secondary forest 
Indigenous plant. 
Visible red reflectance(0.63-0.69um) 
0.1 
0,08 
0,06 
0,04 
0,02 | 
Shrub 
Bamboo 
Primary forest 
Secondary forest | 
Rubber 
Teak 
Indigenous plant 
Acacia 
Infrared reflectance(0.78-0.90um) 
  
04 | 
| | ; 
| | | 
0,371 | 
| 
02 | 
0,1 | 
| 
2 3 $ $ E $ ë 3 
5 z a 5 2 2 à 8 
ES = = x 5 =< 
© © © 
& = $, 
& 8 S 
o £ 
Mid-infrared reflectance(1.55-1.75um) 
04 | 
| 
03] | 
| | | 
0,2 i 
0,1 | 
| 
0! A AERC Ta 
2 8 € 2 5 * = S 
5 E 8 2 8 ê a 8 
a = > x 5 = 
© © o 
E = 5 
© 8 ? 
e E 
Mid-infrared reflectance(2.09-2.35um) 
0,25 
0,2 
0.15 
| 
0,1 | 1 | 
] i 
0,05 
0 
ä t 3 2 = 2 
à = € 
E 
& 
Secondary forest 
Indigenous plant. 
Figure 3. Spectral reflectance from different vegetation types. Vertical lines show mean values with 95% confidence limit 
In the visible red reflectance, shrub, rubber and teak are 
identically different than primary and secondary forest, 
bamboo and acacia (Figure 3). Differentiation between 
primary and secondary forests using only the reflectance is 
not possible in the visible bands. However, image texture 
might help to separate primary from secondary forests. 
Secondary forests usually have a smooth texture than the 
primary one. Shrub and rubber have quite similar and high 
reflectance. The reflectance of teak just follows them partly. 
Shrub is usually having a relatively thin layer of canopy than 
the other vegetation types and sometimes mixed with 
background soil reflectance. Though the canopy of rubber is 
quite different than the shrub, during the time of image 
acquisition rubber canopy was quite leafless, and therefore 
the understorey shrub layers dominated the reflection. 
Consequently the reflection is not identically different from 
the scrubby vegetation. Furthermore, teak has bigger leaves, 
160 
which usually are not dense enough to hide the understorey. 
This plantation strongly discourages the growth of 
understorey vegetation and therefore, the reflection perhaps 
was a mixture of upper canopy leaves which are intermixed 
with background soil reflectance. This assumption is likely 
being true for the scattered trees, which are also not 
differentiable form teak plantation 
The reflection of primary forests and teak is identically lower 
than shrubs, secondary forests and indigenous plantation in 
the near-infrared spectral region (Figure 3). The reflection of 
the rest category lies in between these two types of 
vegetation. It is interesting to note that the reflectance from 
primary and young secondary forest is different though they 
are having the similar species composition on their top- 
canopy. This difference might be associated with the 
difference of age. So it can be concluded that the spectral