as in 
ame 
[x31 
e in 
nges 
  
  
erent 
> and 
The 
used 
soil 
was 
ever, 
er of 
erage 
pixel 
n the 
using 
class 
  
6. CONCLUSION 
On the whole, in this study it was found that Entropy and ASM 
resulted in the maximum number of distinct class pairs for all 
the window sizes. However, ASM in all the three dates and all 
the window sizes resulted in better feature discrimination than 
Entropy. The window size of 25x25 was found to be optimal 
for the current study. Cotton, Pearl millet, rice and scrub could 
be separable in the first two dates. By the third date due to the 
similar stages of rice, cotton and pearl millet, the backscatter 
did not significantly contribute to the textural information. 
Even where the number of distinct class pairs was similar 
between the different texture measures under given window 
sizes, it was found that ASM resulted in better crop 
discrimination in the first and second dates as compared to 
Entropy. The study would be repeated in a different area in 
order to convincingly use texture as a feature discriminator in 
SAR images. 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
This study was possible under the SAR data utilisation 
program. For this we are grateful to Director, SAC for his 
approval. Our gratitude is also due to Shri J.S. Parihar, Group 
Director, Agricultural Resources Group, our mentor, for his 
unflinching guidance during the course of the study. We are 
also thankful to Shri K. K. Mohanty, for his suggestions and 
help during the period. 
REFERENCES 
Baraldi, A. and Parmiggiani, F. 1995. An investigation of the 
textural characteristics associated with the grey level co- 
occurrence matrix statistical parameters. /EEE Transactions on 
Geoscience and Rem. Sens. 33(2), pp.293-304. 
Conners R.W. and Harlow C. A. 1980. A Theoretical 
Comparison of Texture Algorithms, /EEE Tr. on Pattern 
Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol PAMI-2(3). 
Fletcher, N.D. 2002. Multi scale texture segmentation of 
Synthetic Aperture Radar images. Transfer Report to Ph.D, 
University of Bath. 
Haralick, R.M. 1979. Statistical and Structural Approaches to 
Texture, Proceedings of the IEEE, 67(5), pp. 786-804. 
Haralick, R. M., Shanmugam, K. and Dinstein, I. 1973. 
Textural features for image classification. /EEE Transactions 
on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 3(6), pp. 610-623. 
Liew, S.C., Lim, H., Kwoh, K. and Tay, G.K. 1995. Texture 
analysis of SAR images. /nt. Geoscience and Rem. Sens. 
Symp.(IGARSS). Vol.2 pp. 1412-1414. 
Shanmugam, K., Narayanan, V., Frost, V.S., Stiles, J.A. and 
Holtzman, J.C. 1981. Textural features for radar image 
analysis. [EEE Transactions on Geoscience and Rem. Sens. 
19(3), pp. 153-156. 
Sklansky, J., 1978. Image segmentation and feature extraction. 
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 8(4), pp. 
237-247. 
IAPRS & SIS, Vol.34, Part 7, "Resource and Environmental Monitoring", Hyderabad, India,2002 
Soh, L.K. and Tsatsoulis, C. 1999. Texture analysis of SAR sea 
ice imagery using gray level co-occurrence matrices. /EEE 
Transactions on Geoscience and Rem. Sens. 37(2), pp.780-795. 
Ulaby, F.T., Kouyate, F., Brisco, B. and Williams, T.H.L. 
1986. Textural information in SAR images. /EEE Transactions 
on Geoscience and Rem. Sens. 24(2), pp.235-245.