LDA (Table 1) are marginally stronger (2%) using 4 
bands compared with 8 bands. Predictions based on 
either 4 or 8 bands indicate that native may be over 
classified at a rate of 3096 as grazed Buffel grass or 
mulga. For predictions based on 8-bands there is an 
additional error; Burnt Buffel grass may be misclassified 
at a rate of 20% as Grazed Buffel grass. Linear 
discriminators LD1, LD2, and LD3 combined represent 
greater than 80% of the trace in both analyses. By 
examining the contribution of each spectral band to the 
LD’s we can see that in this instance the visible part of 
the spectrum is the most important for discriminating 
between vegetation types (Table 2). Blue and Green 
bands are particularly significant, with Infrared 
contributing least to the discrimination. 
Table 1: Predictions made based on the LDA using 4 
(red, blue, green, NIR1) and 8 bands of the Worldview-2 
imagery to discriminate between Buffel grass from 
various other vegetation types. Correct classifications are 
presented in green, misclassifications are presented in 
red. 
  
Burnt Grazed Lush Mulga Natives Tree 
  
Prediction based on 4-Bands (blue, green, red, NIR1) 
  
  
  
  
  
Burnt Buffel grass 8 0 0 0 0 0 
Grazed Buffel grass 0 E: 0 0 2 0 
Lush Buffel grass 0 0 & 0 0 0 
Mulga 0 0 0 & i 0 
Natives 0 0 0 0 y 0 
Tree 0 0 0 0 0 
  
  
Prediction based on 8-Bands 
  
  
   
   
  
  
   
  
    
Burnt Buffel grass à i 0 0 0 0 
Grazed Buffel grass 0 3 0 0 2 0 
Lush Buffel grass 0 0 $ 0 0 0 
Mulga 0 0 0 5 i 0 
Natives 0 0 0 0 7 0 
Tree 0 0 0 0 0 
  
   
  
  
  
  
   
   
      
        
      
     
     
      
Table 2: Contribution of each spectral band to linear 
discriminatORS 1,2 and 3 for LDA using 4 (red, blue, 
green, NIR1)and 8 bands of the Worldview-2 imagery to 
discriminate between Buffel grass from various other 
vegetation types 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
LD1 LD2 LD3 
4-Bands (blue, green, red, NIR1) 
Blue -0.00803 -0.01977 0.013034 
Green 0.009886 0.005243 -0.02967 
Red 0.005438 0.011704 0.013119 
NIR 1 -0.00564 0.000486 0.004503 
*Proportion of Trace 0.627 0.248 0.1189 
8-Bands 
Coast -0.00079 0.02255 -0.00981 
Blue -0.01732 0.01051 -0.00065 
Green 0.021294 -0.02125 0.029956 
Yellow 0.003094  -0.00596 -0.00037 
Red 0.006336  -0.00443 -0.01628 
Red Edge -0.00952 0.008127  -0.00191 
  
  
  
  
NIR1 -0.00633 0.000283  -0.00838 
NIR2 0.005092  -0.00336 0.004997 
*Proportion of Trace 0.5579 0.3043 0.1188 
  
3.2 Image classification 
The classified image (Figure 5) indicates that Lush 
Buffel grass tends to occur on rich alluvial soils 
surrounding creek lines and drainage depressions. 
Spectral matching was strongest surrounding the major 
creek line which runs north-south through the image. 
Enlargement 4 presented in Figure 5 shows where this 
major creek line passes through a natural gap in the 
ridge. Here is clear that the Buffel grass, division 1 
classified unit, successfully discriminates highly 
photosynthetically active vegetation from trees present in 
the dry creek, where the division 2 did not separate the 
trees, which are easily recognisable to the eye. Both 
divisions 1 and over classify highly photosynthetically 
active vegetation, as can be seen in enlargement B, which 
depicts an oval in the township, which is not sown with 
Buffel grass. 
  
Figure 5: Worldview-2 image classified using MTMF 
target detection and reduced, based on band thresholds, 
to three classes Buffel grass absence (black), presence 
(division 1) (red) and presence (division 2) (blue) where 
division 1 is mostly likely to be Buffel grass. 
3.3 Accuracy Assessment 
The overall accuracy of the imagery classification was 
59% (Table 3). For this assessment the Buffel grass 
presence division 1 and 2 were amalgamated as we 
judged this was appropriate based on our knowledge of 
the area. 
  
   
PEN E op a en