The role of gamma-band synchronization and NMDA receptors in cognitive functions and neuropsychiatric disorders has received increased attention over the past two decades, with significant controversy about their roles. The role of the cortical column as a basic unit in cortical processing has also been debated. The current paper presents the theoretical argument that the dynamically formed column is the binary unit (bit) involved in all cortical processing and memory, and that gamma-band synchronization is required for columnar formation. Moreover, the role of NMDA receptors is explained as allowing the consolidation of synchronized boundary minicolumns that serve as the bit, as well as strengthening the connections among the circuit of columns that are involved with any given memory. Following a discussion of the microcircuitry that may be involved, there is a brief discussion on how the serious neuropsychiatric disorders of schizophrenia, autism, and Alzheimer’s disease can be conceptualized as disorders of disrupted column formation. The arguments presented provide a theoretical basis for future research to determine the validity of this novel view.
Citation: Robert A. Moss, Jarrod Moss. The Role of Dynamic Columns in Explaining Gamma-band Synchronization and NMDA Receptors in Cognitive Functions[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2014, 1(1): 65-88. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2014.1.65
[1] | Firoz Ahmad, Laxmi Goparaju, Abdul Qayum . Wild life habitat suitability and conservation hotspot mapping: Remote Sensing and GIS based decision support system. AIMS Geosciences, 2018, 4(1): 66-87. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2018.1.66 |
[2] | Firoz Ahmad, Laxmi Goparaju . Soil and Water Conservation Prioritization Using Geospatial Technology – a Case Study of Part of Subarnarekha Basin, Jharkhand, India. AIMS Geosciences, 2017, 3(3): 375-395. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2017.3.375 |
[3] | Rajeev Singh Chandel, Shruti Kanga, Suraj Kumar Singh . Impact of COVID-19 on tourism sector: a case study of Rajasthan, India. AIMS Geosciences, 2021, 7(2): 224-243. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2021014 |
[4] | Binoy Kumar Barman, K. Srinivasa Rao, Kangkana Sonowal, Zohmingliani, N.S.R. Prasad, Uttam Kumar Sahoo . Soil erosion assessment using revised universal soil loss equation model and geo-spatial technology: A case study of upper Tuirial river basin, Mizoram, India. AIMS Geosciences, 2020, 6(4): 525-544. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2020030 |
[5] | Voyé Liliane, Karel Dobbelaere . Pilgrimages: Space, Polysemy and Three Cases. AIMS Geosciences, 2016, 2(2): 166-181. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2016.2.166 |
[6] | Alexander Vasilyevich Tertyshnikov . Results of radio sounding of the south polar auroral oval performed with the GNSS signals of a sledge-track train around the Russian Antarctic station "Vostok". AIMS Geosciences, 2021, 7(2): 129-137. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2021008 |
[7] | Alexander Fekete . Urban and Rural Landslide Hazard and Exposure Mapping Using Landsat and Corona Satellite Imagery for Tehran and the Alborz Mountains, Iran. AIMS Geosciences, 2017, 3(1): 37-66. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2017.1.37 |
[8] | Mario Batubara, Masa-yuki Yamamoto, Islam Hosni Hemdan Eldedsouki Hamama, Musthofa Lathif, Ibnu Fathrio . Measurement and characterization of infrasound waves from the March 25, 2023 thunderstorm at the near equatorial. AIMS Geosciences, 2023, 9(4): 652-671. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2023035 |
[9] | Miyuru B Gunathilake, Thamashi Senerath, Upaka Rathnayake . Artificial neural network based PERSIANN data sets in evaluation of hydrologic utility of precipitation estimations in a tropical watershed of Sri Lanka. AIMS Geosciences, 2021, 7(3): 478-489. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2021027 |
[10] | K Siri Lakshatha, D Venkata Ratnam, K Sivakrishna . Applicability of NeQuick G ionospheric model for single-frequency GNSS users over India. AIMS Geosciences, 2022, 8(1): 127-136. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2022008 |
The role of gamma-band synchronization and NMDA receptors in cognitive functions and neuropsychiatric disorders has received increased attention over the past two decades, with significant controversy about their roles. The role of the cortical column as a basic unit in cortical processing has also been debated. The current paper presents the theoretical argument that the dynamically formed column is the binary unit (bit) involved in all cortical processing and memory, and that gamma-band synchronization is required for columnar formation. Moreover, the role of NMDA receptors is explained as allowing the consolidation of synchronized boundary minicolumns that serve as the bit, as well as strengthening the connections among the circuit of columns that are involved with any given memory. Following a discussion of the microcircuitry that may be involved, there is a brief discussion on how the serious neuropsychiatric disorders of schizophrenia, autism, and Alzheimer’s disease can be conceptualized as disorders of disrupted column formation. The arguments presented provide a theoretical basis for future research to determine the validity of this novel view.
Geo-informatics technology or 3S technology stands for integration of Remote Sensing (RS), Geospatial Information System (GIS) and Global Positioning System (GPS). Present-day 3S technology is proving as most dynamic and innovative tool for environmental researcher and geo-scientist for mapping, monitoring, modelling, assessment and defensible management of various environmental issues and natural resources by its specific capabilities and cost effectiveness [1]. Assessment of LU/LC variations is feasible using GIS techniques if the subsequent spatial datasets of different scales or resolutions are available [2]. Land use land cover is an important component to understand global land status; it shows present as well as past status of the Earth’s surface. Land use and land cover are two distinct terms which are often used interchangeably. In common, land cover is defined as the perceived (bio)-physical cover on the Earth’s surface which may include vegetation, man-made features, bare rock, bare soil, and inland water surfaces, etc. Land use denotes the approach in which land has been used by humans for economic activities [3,4,5,6]. LU/LC is the basic parameter which evaluates the composition of Earth’s surface to monitor the condition and functioning of the ecosystem. LU/LC variations caused by natural and human resources have generally resulted in deforestation, global warming, biodiversity loss and increase of natural disaster-flooding [7,8,9,10]. LU/LC data sets are the primary inputs for environmental modelling and monitoring, carbon cycle studies, hydrology and global climate change analysis, natural resources management, policy-making, etc. [11]. The LU/LC monitoring includes tracking the changes of a natural environment and their influence on the ecosystem [12].
There are numerous methods established in literature for LU/LC change detection: post classification comparison, image ratio, image regression, orthodox image variation and manual on-screen digitization of multi temporal satellite imagery [7]. It is a well known fact that post classification comparison is the most precise technique which has the advantage of indicating the nature of the changes [11]. In present research, change detection comparison (pixel by pixel) method was adopted to the Land use/Land cover maps obtained from satellite imagery. Many researchers from diverse countries have recognized the advantages of geospatial technology in mapping, monitoring and detecting LU/LC variation. For example Prakasam (2010) analyzed LU/LC change using Landsat and IRS image data in Kodaikanal Taluk, Tamil Nadu and found that forest degraded up to 50% in 2008. While N. Kayet and K. Pathak (2015) revealed that Very Dense Forest (VDF) area of Saranda forest, Jharkhand reduced to 8.61% and Open Forest (OF) increased to 7.03% between the years 1992 and 2014 due to increase in built-up area and mining activity. In West Java, Kaswanto et al. (2010) analyzed the impact of LU/LC changes on spatial pattern of landscape between two decades (1989-2009) using Landsat Imagery and detected the changing of forest and grassland into agricultural and built-up area. Mengistu and Salami (2007) studied the LU/LC change detection using Landsat imagery in a region of south western Nigeria and they revealed that forest area has decreased and a corresponding increase is noticed in shrub land/farmland complex and settlement/bare surface [7]. An assessment of variation in forest cover has become a vital element in the present-day system for management of natural resources and identifying environmental deviations [5].
Many of recent researches has publicized that the overpowering population pressure, practicing unscientific cultivated methods and the lack of consciousness about the significance of forests among the people are the key reasons for deforestation/degradation of forest [6]. Jharkhand has geographical area of 79, 714 Km2 contributing 2.42% of the country's area. The total noted forest area of the state is 23, 605 Km2 which is 29.61% of the geographic area of the state. Reserved forests area establishes 18.58%, protected forests area 81.28%, and unclassified forests area covers 0.14%. The total forest and tree cover area set together, establishes about 32.48% of the geographic area of the state compared to the national average of 23.81% [13,15]. DWLS also plays an active part towards maintaining the state's ecological condition by its large forest area which is spread out over 193.22 Km2. Various habitats inhabited by diverse wildlife species are essential for maintaining the ecological balance and global carbon cycle equilibrium [13]. The present investigation reports the variation in LU/LC due to increment in shifting cultivation, forest fire, built-up area, etc. Also an attempt has been taken to establish a relation between decrease in forest cover area with increase in built-up area, agricultural land or bare land by multi temporal satellite imagery of DWLS.
The Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary, Jamshedpur which is spatially located between Latitudes 22°46’30” and 22°57’ N and Longitudes 86°3’15” and 86°26’30” E in the East Singhbhum and Sariakela-Kharsawan districts of Jharkhand and spread out over an area of 193.22 Km2 covering 86 villages are shown in Figure 1. DWLS was inaugurated by Late Sanjay Gandhi in 1975 and sanctuary
was acquainted by Government of Bihar vide gazette notification number S.O 1221 dated 17 July1976 [13]. It has a distinct Eco-sensitive Zone to shield the forest area. Forest renews the ground water aquifer by storing rainfall and protects streams against siltation by minimizing soil erosion. DWLS is so compact that visibility reduces to just 15 feet, it carries a diverse habitat for different Wildlife Species, and it is rich in vegetation containing various species of plant and trees with 90% of timber [16]. Ramgarh and Saharbera are selected for exploration of forest degradation due to illegal settlement encroachment in forest reserve area, which is geographically located in south west (SW) of the sanctuary nearby the National Highway-32 (NH). Increase in the population and NH construction has its consequence in the forest area getting decreased [13,16].
The five sets of temporal remote sensing data used for current study include: LISS-III (2009, 2011 & 2013), Landsat-TM (2015, 2016) and Topographic maps of scale 1:50, 000. Five different year’s satellite data were collected from BHUVAN and United State Geological Survey (USGS) [17,18], where these data are freely available, and topographic maps were downloaded from India and Pakistan AMS topographic maps [19]. Care is taken to ensure that the data was cloud free and does not belong to leafless season. The details of the used satellite data are presented in Table 1. Shapefile of DWLS with village boundary and Pillars, GPS Coordinates of two villages, Ramgarh and Saharbera were provided by the Administration of DWLS.
Year | Satellite date | Resolution | Data source |
2009 | LISS-Ⅲ | 23.5m | BHUVAN |
2011 | LISS-Ⅲ | 23.5m | BHUVAN |
2013 | LISS-Ⅲ | 23.5m | BHUVAN |
2015 | LANDSAT-TM | 30m | USGS |
2016 | LANDSAT-TM | 30m | USGS |
ArcMap-10 and Erdas Imagine-9.2 software’s have been preferred for current study to prepare the LU/LC variation maps, using multi-temporal satellite data and toposheet. Different steps have been followed in present investigation as shown in Figure 2. The all-encompassing image
processing procedure was done by using ERDAS IMAGINE and ArcMap software. Layer stacking of individual band in image file and georeferencing were completed by ERDAS IMAGINE-9.2; False Colour Composite (FCC) creation and further image classification were accomplished by using ArcMap-10 [12].
In supervised classification, Maximum Likelihood Classification (MLC) technique was adopted in present study to analyze the variation in LU/LC of DWLS in five different years. The maximum likelihood classifier takes up the pixels of unknown class membership and decides certain possibility of going to a specific category [20]. The probabilities in MLC technique are the same for all the classes and the input signatures in each band follows the Gaussian distribution function to classify the image [21]. The supervised classification involves training areas for every category and the training area is used to express spectral reflectance patterns/signature of each LU/LC category. The signatures would then be used by classifier to group the pixels into a certain category which has the same spectral patterns [20,21]. The number of the test points/pixels was derived based on the thumb rule that these should at least ten times the total number of classes. As there are five LU/LC classes so the total sample size was computed to be 5*10*5=250 pixels, and the number of pixels for each class was determined by using ratio calculation. All the five LU/LC classes were assigned a rank in the ascending order of their area, each rank was divided by the sum of the ranks, i.e. 15, and finally it was multiplied by the total number of pixels, i.e. 250 as shown in Table 2. The training sample was collected on-screen.
LU/LC Classes | Rank | Sample Size |
VDF | 1 | 1/15*250=16.67 |
MF | 2 | 2/15*250=33.33 |
SETTELEMENTS | 4 | 4/15*250=66.67 |
WATERBODY | 5 | 5/15*250=83.33 |
BARELAND/OTHERS | 3 | 3/15*250=50 |
TOTAL | 15 | 250 |
Infringed zones inside the forest diverge in shape and size. It is comparatively easier to identify the larger extension of encroached pockets. In several cases, encroachers often plant non-forest trees in the gaps and in nearby small herbs and shrubs to have their right on their encroached land. In such cases, it is difficult to identify the encroachment with remote sensing images due to little background contrast in such environment. It is important to mention that in the absence of digitized boundaries of recorded forest area; it is bit difficult to indicate changes in forest-cover within and out-side of the small forest areas. Similarly, the absence of digitized boundaries of revenue villages also leads to confusion in the detection of forest encroachment. Also, it is difficult to validate encroachments using toposheets as they are not frequently updated by the concerned agencies. In such cases, validation is done through multi temporal satellite imagery, interviews, field visits, perceiving forest agency records and taking GPS/DGPS readings [22,23,24,25,26].
With the help of multi temporal satellite data of five years, supervised classification (Maximum Likelihood Classification) technique has been adopted which works based on the similar reflectance appearance of altered LU/LC classes. It is observed from the prepared map that the area of VDF has gradually decreased; in 2009 VDF area was 166.57 Km2 which is decreased to 164.30 Km2 in 2011, likely VDF area regularly decreased to 159.43Km2, 156.75 Km2 and 154.13Km2 approximately in 2013, 2015 and 2016 respectively as presented in Figure 3. Degradation of VDF and Moderate Forest (MF) area in the year of 2011-2013 was very high that contributes 4.87 and 15.04 Km2 respectively which belong to 1.26% & 3.86% of the total VDF and MF area. It is due to drastic increment in settlement and bare land/ others area which are 7.82 & 13.46 Km2 respectively. Similarly in the year range of 2009-2011, 2013-2015 and 2015-2016 VDF area got degraded by 0.59%, 0.68% and 0.67% incessantly, which corresponds to degradation of 2.27 Km2, 2.68 Km2 and 2.62 Km2 of the VDF area respectively. MF also gradually decreased since last 7 years, but in the year of 2015 there is a sudden raise by 2.13% in comparison to 2013 (This drastic change may be due to classification error or due to seasonal variation in vegetation) as presented in Table 3.
LU/LC CLASS | 2009 | 2011 | 2013 | 2015 | 2016 | |||||
Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | |
(Km2) | (%) | (Km2) | (%) | (Km2) | (%) | (Km2) | (%) | (Km2) | (%) | |
VDF | 166.57 | 42.80 | 164.30 | 42.20 | 159.43 | 40.94 | 156.75 | 40.26 | 154.13 | 39.56 |
MF | 132.68 | 34.10 | 102.54 | 26.33 | 87.49 | 22.47 | 95.76 | 24.60 | 81.126 | 20.84 |
SETTELEMENTS | 40.16 | 10.31 | 41.23 | 10.59 | 49.05 | 12.60 | 50.06 | 12.85 | 52.01 | 13.36 |
WATERBODY | 6.39 | 1.64 | 7.44 | 1.91 | 6.05 | 1.55 | 6.719 | 1.72 | 6.966 | 1.78 |
BARELAND/OTHERS | 43.37 | 11.14 | 73.86 | 18.96 | 87.32 | 22.43 | 80.01 | 20.55 | 95.02 | 24.41 |
During the degradation assessment of reserve forest area of sanctuary with respect to previous time period, it is observed that forest degradation is steadily taking place due to various causes like shifting cultivation, forest fire, cutting of trees to fulfil basic needs of local habitants, increment in settlement area, conversion of forest area into crop land/ bare land etc. Throughout the whole investigation of last 7 years from 2009-2016 it is noted that VDF area of DWLS is gradually diminishing at the rate of 0.46% that is 1.77 Km2 per year of total area. Whereas settlements and bare land/others are steadily increasing at the rate of 0.44% & 1.89% which are 1.69 Km2 and 7.37 Km2 per year of total forest cover area. Water body within the DWLS is approximately constant in all the years as shown in Figure 4. According to current case study it has been revealed that the deforestation is taking place gradually due to several concerns as we have discussed earlier, which is not optimistic indication for ecological equilibrium.
To establish a relation between the humiliation of forest cover and increment in settlement area/bare land, two selected villages viz. Ramgarh and Saharbera were surveyed with prior GPS coordinates of the reserved forest boundary. During the traditional field survey it is noted that lots of pillars were ruined or illegally dislocated by the local habitants for making their own shelters or using it as an agricultural land etc. which is validated in Figure 5. Pillars location with prior and examined position has been also listed with loss of forest cover distances in Table 4 and 5 for the two selected villages. Minus marks (-) in Table 4 and Table 5 shows the loss of distance (approximately) from the prior pillars location (only negative variation of Pillars ID has been listed).
Pillars ID | Examined GPS Coordinates (Degree, Minute, Second) | Prior GPS Coordinates (Degree, Minute, Second) | Variation in Pillars Distance (m) |
1 | 86 09' 09.0'' E 22 53' 08.6'' N | 86 9'8.97"E 22 53'9.287"N | -21.151802 |
3 | 86 09' 17.1'' E 22 53' 06.3'' N | 86 9'12.071"E 22 53'9.799"N | -70.764403 |
4 | 86 09' 22.8'' E 22 53' 04.6'' N | 86 9'17.078"E 22 53'7.968"N | -52.270414 |
5 | 86 09' 26.3'' E 22 53' 04.0'' N | 86 9'22.786"E 22 53'6.662"N | -18.493981 |
7 | 86 09' 33.5'' E 22 53' 03.9'' N | 86 9'29.935"E 22 53'5.493"N | -3.100787 |
8 | 86 09' 35.5'' E 22 53' 03.8'' N | 86 9'33.487"E 22 53'5.773"N | -3.000650 |
11 | 86 09' 41.0'' E 22 53' 03.5'' N | 86 9'41.127"E 22 53'4.738"N | -12.335158 |
14 | 86 09' 57.7'' E 22 53' 06.0'' N | 86 9'51.837"E 22 53'8.086"N | -55.371204 |
15 | 86 09' 58.8'' E 22 53' 04.6'' N | 86 9'57.761"E 22 53'6.031"N | -43.078794 |
16 | 86 10' 02.4'' E 22 53' 03.8'' N | 86 9'58.86 "E 22 53'4.603"N | -24.695555 |
18 | 86 09' 09.0'' E 22 53' 08.6'' N | 86 9'8.97"E 22 53'9.287"N | -21.151802 |
Pillars ID | Examined GPS Coordinates (Degree, Minute, Second) | Prior GPS Coordinates (Degree, Minute, Second) | Variation In Pillars Distance (m) |
26 | 86 07' 35.8'' E 22 53' 46.6'' N | 86 7' 35.62"E 22 53' 46.651"N | -5.36 |
53 | 86 07' 5.7" E 22 53' 26.3"N | 86 6' 55.873"E 22 53' 29.852"N | -87.837663 |
54 | 86 07' 8.4" E 22 53' 25.6"N | 86 6' 59.341"E 22 53' 29.027"N | -56.218106 |
By analysing the above listed prior and examined GPS coordinates it can be predicted that forest area is diminished by human influences to fulfil their needs, so it is very important to protect the forest environment and maintain the ecological balance.
The accuracy assessment is essential to validate the of image classification results and a number of methods have been developed for this process. For accuracy assessment validation, a confusion matrix has been prepared with the help of classified and pre classification satellite imagery [27], using a sample of 10 randomly selected pixels within each class that were collected on-screen by an experienced interpreter. The results show that the overall accuracy of five LU/LC datasets for the years 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2016 was 91.48, 95.00, 95.00, 92.59 and 85.37 respectively as shown in Table 6.
(A) Year- 2009 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | MF | Waterbody | Settlement | Bareland/Others | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 87.5 |
MF | 3 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 72.73 |
Waterbody | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 100 |
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Total | 10 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 47 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 70 | 80 | 80 | 100 | 100 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 91.48 | ||||||
(B) Year- 2011 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | Waterbody | MF | Bareland/Others | Settlement | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Waterbody | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
MF | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 100 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 12 | 83.33 |
Total | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 50 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 100 | 100 | 90 | 90 | 100 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 95.00 | ||||||
(C) Year- 2013 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | MF | Waterbody | Settlement | Bareland/Others | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 83.33 |
MF | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Waterbody | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 100 |
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Total | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 50 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 100 | 100 | 80 | 100 | 100 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 95.00 | ||||||
(D) Year- 2015 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | Waterbody | MF | Bareland/Others | Settlement | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Waterbody | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
MF | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 11 | 81.82 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 11 | 90.91 |
Total | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 50 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 100 | 100 | 90 | 80 | 100 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 92.59 | ||||||
(E) Year- 2016 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | MF | Waterbody | Settlement | Bareland/Others | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
MF | 0 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 85.71 |
Waterbody | 0 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 64.29 |
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Total | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 50 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 100 | 60 | 90 | 100 | 90 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 85.37 |
The investigation apparently predicts the reason behind the gradual loss in forest cover area of DWLS from the study of multi-temporal satellite imageries of last seven years since 2009-2016 as well as from the field visit experience. Main causes for the loss of forest area assessed from field verification and interacting with local villagers are as follows; shifting cultivation, forest fire, settlement infringement, conversion of forest area into crop land/ bare land etc. With the help of In-situ data and remotely sensed data it has been analyzed that VDF area is decreasing at the rate of 1.77 Km2 per year and settlement/bare land is increasing at the rate of 1.69 Km2, 7.37 Km2 respectively per year of total area which is not positive indication for ecological equilibrium. The foremost variations in the LU/LC through the study retro amongst the years 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2016 are recorded which provided us with stimulating explanation.
Authors are grateful to Ministry of Environment and Forests, Jharkhand Wildlife for authorization to work in Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary. Authors also thank to Mr. Kamlesh Pandey, Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary Jamshedpur, for kind support. We are pleased to GIS analyst of Jamshedpur Mr. Balram Yadav, for going through the manuscript and providing their valuable comments, suggestions and appreciation to improve this manuscript. We would like to express sincere thanks to Forest guard Kaleshwar Mahto and many staffs of DWLS for their help and support during the field work.
All authors declare no conflict of interest.
[1] |
Gray CM, Singer W. (1989) Stimulus-specific neuronal oscillations in orientation columns of cat visual cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci 86: 1698-1702. doi: 10.1073/pnas.86.5.1698
![]() |
[2] |
Yang J-W, An S, Sun J-J, Reyes-Puerta V, Kindler J, Berger T, Kilb W, Luhmann HJ. (2013) Thalamic Network Oscillations Synchronize Ontogenetic Columns in the Newborn Rat Barrel Cortex. Cereb Cortex 23: 1299-1316. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs103
![]() |
[3] |
Steriade M, Amzica F. (1996) Intracortical and corticothalamic coherency of fast spontaneous oscillations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93: 2533-2538. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.6.2533
![]() |
[4] |
Singer W. (1999) Neuronal synchrony: a versatile code for the definition of relations? Neuron 24:49-65. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80821-1
![]() |
[5] |
Fries P. (2009) Neuronal Gamma-Band Synchronization as a Fundamental Process in Cortical Computation. Annu Rev Neurosci 32: 209-224. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135603
![]() |
[6] |
Ray S, Maunsell, JHR. (2010) Differences in Gamma Frequencies across Visual Cortex Restrict Their Possible Use in Computation. Neuron 67: 885-896. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.004
![]() |
[7] |
Jia X, Xing D Kohn A. (2013) No Consistent Relationship between Gamma Power and Peak Frequency in Macaque Primary Visual Cortex. J Neurosci 33: 17-25. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1687-12.2013
![]() |
[8] |
Burns SP, Xing D, Shapley RM. (2011) Is Gamma-Band Activity in the Local Field Potential of V1 Cortex a “Clock” or Filtered Noise? J Neurosci 31: 9658-9664. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0660-11.2011
![]() |
[9] |
Merker B. (2013) Cortical gamma oscillations: the functional key is activation, not cognition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 37: 401-417. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01.013
![]() |
[10] |
Guo W, Chambers AR, Darrow KN, et al. (2012) Robustness of Cortical Topography across Fields, Laminae, Anesthetic States, and Neurophysiological Signal Types. J Neurosci 32:9159-9172. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0065-12.2012
![]() |
[11] | Mountcastle VB. (1957) Modality and topographic properties of single neurons of cat's somatic sensory cortex. J Neurophysiol 20: 408-434. |
[12] |
Mountcastle VB. (1997) The columnar organization of the neocortex. Brain 120: 701-722. doi: 10.1093/brain/120.4.701
![]() |
[13] |
Horton JC Adams DL. (2005) The cortical column: a structure without a function. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 360: 837-862. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1623
![]() |
[14] | Moss RA. (2006) Of bits and logic: Cortical columns in learning and memory. J Mind Behav 27:215-246. |
[15] | Moss RA, Hunter BP, Shah D Havens TL. (2012) A Theory of Hemispheric Specialization Based on Cortical Columns. J Mind Behav 33: 141-172. |
[16] | Moss RA. (2013) Psychotherapy and the Brain: The Dimensional Systems Model and Clinical Biopsychology. J Mind Behav 34: 63-89. |
[17] | Moss RA. (2013) Gamma-band Synchronization & Cortical Columns. Neuropsychotherapist 3:126-127. |
[18] | Luria AR. (1966) Higher cortical functions in man. New York: Basic Books. |
[19] | Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Loring DW and Hannay HJ. (2004) Neuropsychological Assessment 4 Eds., Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
[20] | Calvin W. (1995) Cortical columns, modules, and Hebbian cell assemblies. In Handbook of brain theory and neural networks, Arbib MA. Author. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 269-275. |
[21] |
Tulving E, Thomson DM. (1973) Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychol Rev 80: 352-373. doi: 10.1037/h0020071
![]() |
[22] |
Rissman J Wagner AD. (2012) Distributed representations in memory: Insights from functional brain imaging. Annu Rev Psychol 63: 101-128. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100344
![]() |
[23] |
Polyn SM, Natu VS, Cohe JD and Norman KA. (2005) Category-specific cortical activity precedes retrieval during memory search. Science 310: 1963-1966. doi: 10.1126/science.1117645
![]() |
[24] | Gazzaniga MS. (2002) Consciousness. In Encyclopedia of the human brain, Ramachandran VS, Eds. New York: Academic Press, 31-35. |
[25] |
Moss RA. (2007) Negative emotional memories in clinical treatment: Theoretical considerations. J Psychother Integr 17: 209-224. doi: 10.1037/1053-0479.17.2.209
![]() |
[26] |
Olshausen BA Field DJ. (2004) Sparse coding of sensory inputs. Curr Opin Neurobiol 14:481-487. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2004.07.007
![]() |
[27] |
Song S, Sjöström PJ, Reigl M, Nelson S Chklovskii DB. (2005) Highly Nonrandom Features of Synaptic Connectivity in Local Cortical Circuits. PLoS Biol 3: e68. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030068
![]() |
[28] |
Perin R, Berger TK Markram H. (2011) A synaptic organizing principle for cortical neuronal groups. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108: 5419-5424. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1016051108
![]() |
[29] |
Feldmeyer D, Brecht M, Helmchen F, Petersen CCH, Poulet JFA, Staiger JF, Luhmann HJ Schwarz C. (2013) Barrel cortex function. Prog Neurobiol 103: 3-27. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2012.11.002
![]() |
[30] |
Avermann M, Tomm, C, Mateo C, Gerstner W Petersen CCH. (2012) Microcircuits of excitatory and inhibitory neurons in layer 2/3 of mouse barrel cortex. J Neurophysiol 107: 3116-3134. doi: 10.1152/jn.00917.2011
![]() |
[31] |
Crochet S, Poulet JF, Kremer Y, Petersen CC. (2011) Synaptic Mechanisms Underlying Sparse Coding of Active Touch. Neuron 69: 1160-1175. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.022
![]() |
[32] |
Kerr JN, de Kock CP, Greenberg DS, Bruno RM, Sakmann B, Helmchen F. (2007) Spatial Organization of Neuronal Population Responses in Layer 2/3 of Rat Barrel Cortex. J Neurosci 27:13316-13328. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2210-07.2007
![]() |
[33] |
Lefort S, Tomm C, Floyd Sarria JC, Petersen CC. (2009) The Excitatory Neuronal Network of the C2 Barrel Column in Mouse Primary Somatosensory Cortex. Neuron 61: 301-316. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.020
![]() |
[34] |
O'Connor DH, Peron SP, Huber D, Svoboda K. (2010) Neural Activity in Barrel Cortex Underlying Vibrissa-Based Object Localization in Mice. Neuron 67: 1048-1061. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.026
![]() |
[35] |
Yassin L, Benedetti BL, Jouhanneau JS, Wen JA, Poulet JF, Barth AL. (2010) An Embedded Subnetwork of Highly Active Neurons in the Neocortex. Neuron 68: 1043-1050. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.11.029
![]() |
[36] |
Ohki K, Chung S, Ch'ng YH, Kara P, Reid RC. (2005) Functional imaging with cellular resolution reveals precise micro-architecture in visual cortex. Nature 433: 597-603. doi: 10.1038/nature03274
![]() |
[37] | Bruno RM, Khatri V, Land PW, Simons DJ. (2003) Thalamocortical angular tuning domains within individual barrels of rat somatosensory cortex. J Neurosci 23: 9565-9574. |
[38] |
Favorov OV, Diamond ME, Whitsel BL. (1987) Evidence for a mosaic representation of the body surface in area 3b of the somatic cortex of cat. Proc Natl Acad Sci 84: 6606-6610. doi: 10.1073/pnas.84.18.6606
![]() |
[39] |
Packer AM, Yuste R. (2011) Dense, Unspecific Connectivity of Neocortical Parvalbumin-Positive Interneurons: A Canonical Microcircuit for Inhibition? J Neurosci 31:13260-13271. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3131-11.2011
![]() |
[40] |
Fino E, Packer AM, Yuste R. (2013) The logic of inhibitory connectivity in the neocortex. The Neuroscientist 19: 228-237. doi: 10.1177/1073858412456743
![]() |
[41] |
Berger TK, Silberberg G, Perin R, Markram H. (2010) Brief Bursts Self-Inhibit and Correlate the Pyramidal Network. PLoS Biol 8: e1000473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000473
![]() |
[42] |
Börgers C, Talei Franzesi G, LeBeau FEN, Boyden ES, Kopell NJ. (2012) Minimal Size of Cell Assemblies Coordinated by Gamma Oscillations. PLoS Comput Biol 8: e1002362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002362
![]() |
[43] |
Börgers C, Epstein S, Kopell NJ. (2005) Background gamma rhythmicity and attention in cortical local circuits: A computational study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 7002-7007. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0502366102
![]() |
[44] |
Hirata Y, and Sawaguchi T. (2008) Functional columns in the primate prefrontal cortex revealed by optical imaging in vitro. Neurosci Res 61: 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.neures.2008.01.003
![]() |
[45] |
Khazipov R, Minlebaev M Valeeva G. (2013) Early gamma oscillations. Neuroscience 250:240-252. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.07.019
![]() |
[46] |
Minlebaev M, Colonnese M, Tsintsadze T, Sirota A, Khazipov R. (2011) Early Gamma Oscillations Synchronize Developing Thalamus and Cortex. Science 334: 226-229. doi: 10.1126/science.1210574
![]() |
[47] |
Vicente R, Gollo LL, Mirasso CR, Fischer I Pipa G. (2008) Dynamical relaying can yield zero time lag neuronal synchrony despite long conduction delays. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:17157-17162. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809353105
![]() |
[48] |
Gruber T Müller MM. (2002) Effects of picture repetition on induced gamma band responses, evoked potentials, and phase synchrony in the human EEG. Cogn Brain Res 13: 377-392. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00130-6
![]() |
[49] | Ahmed OJ Cash SS. (2013) Finding synchrony in the desynchronized EEG: the history and interpretation of gamma rhythms. Front Integr Neurosci 7: 58. |
[50] |
Isaacson JS, Scanziani M. (2011) How Inhibition Shapes Cortical Activity. Neuron 72: 231-243. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.09.027
![]() |
[51] | Uhlhaas P, Pipa G, Lima B, Melloni L, Neuenschwander S, Nikolić D, Singer W, Uhlhaas PJ, Pipa G, Lima B, et al. (2009) Neural synchrony in cortical networks: history, concept and current status. Front Integr Neurosci 3: 17. |
[52] |
Amzica F Steriade M. (1996) Progressive cortical synchronization of ponto-geniculo-occipital potentials during rapid eye movement sleep. Neuroscience 72: 309-314. doi: 10.1016/0306-4522(96)00012-7
![]() |
[53] | Loebel A, Nelken I Tsodyks M. (2007) Processing of sounds by population spikes in a model of primary auditory cortex. Front Neurosci 1: 1. |
[54] |
Bathellier B, Ushakova L Rumpel S. (2012) Discrete Neocortical Dynamics Predict Behavioral Categorization of Sounds. Neuron 76: 435-449. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.07.008
![]() |
[55] |
Roberts MJ, Lowet E, Brunet NM, Ter Wal M, Tiesinga P, Fries P De Weerd P. (2013) Robust Gamma Coherence between Macaque V1 and V2 by Dynamic Frequency Matching. Neuron 78:523-536. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.03.003
![]() |
[56] |
Ince RAA, Panzeri S Kayser C. (2013) Neural Codes Formed by Small and Temporally Precise Populations in Auditory Cortex. J Neurosci 33: 18277-18287. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2631-13.2013
![]() |
[57] |
Bragin A, Almajano J, Kheiri F, Engel JJ. (2014) Functional Connectivity in the Brain Estimated by Analysis of Gamma Events. PLoS ONE 9: e85900. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085900
![]() |
[58] |
Buzsáki G, Wang XJ. (2012) Mechanisms of Gamma Oscillations. Annu Rev Neurosci 35:203-225. doi: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150444
![]() |
[59] |
Wang L, Liu X, Guise KG, Knight RT, Ghajar J Fan J. (2010) Effective Connectivity of the Fronto-parietal Network during Attentional Control. J Cogn Neurosci 22: 543-553. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21210
![]() |
[60] |
Douglas RJ Martin KAC. (2004) Neuronal Circuits of the Neocortex. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:419-451. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144152
![]() |
[61] |
Tiesinga P Sejnowski TJ. (2009) Cortical Enlightenment: Are Attentional Gamma Oscillations Driven by ING or PING? Neuron 63: 727-732. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.09.009
![]() |
[62] |
Wester JC Contreras D. (2012) Columnar Interactions Determine Horizontal Propagation of Recurrent Network Activity in Neocortex. J Neurosci 32: 5454-5471. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5006-11.2012
![]() |
[63] | Amzica F Steriade M. (1995) Short- and long-range neuronal synchronization of the slow. (< 1 Hz) cortical oscillation. J Neurophysiol 73: 20-38. |
[64] |
Rutishauser U, Slotine JJ Douglas RJ. (2012) Competition Through Selective Inhibitory Synchrony. Neural Comput 24: 2033-2052. doi: 10.1162/NECO_a_00304
![]() |
[65] |
Gonzalez-Burgos G Lewis DA. (2012) NMDA Receptor Hypofunction, Parvalbumin-Positive Neurons, and Cortical Gamma Oscillations in Schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 38: 950-957. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbs010
![]() |
[66] |
Wang H, Hu Y Tsien JZ. (2006) Molecular and systems mechanisms of memory consolidation and storage. Prog Neurobiol 79: 123-135. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2006.06.004
![]() |
[67] |
Shimizu E, Tang YP, Rampon C Tsien J Z. (2000) NMDA Receptor-Dependent Synaptic Reinforcement as a Crucial Process for Memory Consolidation. Science 290: 1170-1174. doi: 10.1126/science.290.5494.1170
![]() |
[68] | Luczak A and MacLean JN. (2012) Default activity patterns at the neocortical microcircuit level. Front Integr Neurosci 6: 30. |
[69] |
Bermudez Contreras EJ, Schjetnan AGP, Muhammad A, Bartho P, McNaughton BL, Kolb B, Gruber AJ Luczak A. (2013) Formation and Reverberation of Sequential Neural Activity Patterns Evoked by Sensory Stimulation Are Enhanced during Cortical Desynchronization. Neuron 79:555-566. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.06.013
![]() |
[70] |
Fukushima M, Saunders RC, Leopold DA, Mishkin M Averbeck BB. (2012) Spontaneous High-Gamma Band Activity Reflects Functional Organization of Auditory Cortex in the Awake Macaque. Neuron 74: 899-910. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.014
![]() |
[71] |
Chen X, Rochefort NL, Sakmann B Konnerth A. (2013) Reactivation of the Same Synapses during Spontaneous Up States and Sensory Stimuli. Cell Rep 4: 31-39. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.05.042
![]() |
[72] | Shlosberg D, Buskila Y, Abu-Ghanem Y Amitai Y. (2012) Spatiotemporal alterations of cortical network activity by selective loss of NOS-expressing interneurons. Front Neural Circuits 6: 3. |
[73] |
Peyrache A, Dehghani N, Eskandar EN, Madsen JR, Anderson WS, Donoghue JA, Hochberg LR, Halgren E, Cash SS Destexhe A. (2012) Spatiotemporal dynamics of neocortical excitation and inhibition during human sleep. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109: 1731-1736. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1109895109
![]() |
[74] |
Pi HJ, Hangya B, Kvitsiani D, Sanders, JI, Huang ZJ Kepecs A. (2013) Cortical interneurons that specialize in disinhibitory control. Nature 503: 521-524. doi: 10.1038/nature12676
![]() |
[75] |
Jiang X, Wang G, Lee AJ, Stornetta RL Zhu JJ. (2013) The organization of two new cortical interneuronal circuits. Nat Neurosci 16: 210-218. doi: 10.1038/nn.3305
![]() |
[76] |
Lee CK Huguenard JR. (2011) Martinotti Cells: Community Organizers. Neuron 69: 1042-1045. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.003
![]() |
[77] |
Buchanan KA, Blackman AV, Moreau AW, Elgar D, Costa RP, Lalanne T, Tudor JAA, Oyrer J and Sjöström PJ. (2012) Target-Specific Expression of Presynaptic NMDA Receptors in Neocortical Microcircuits. Neuron 75: 451-466. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.017
![]() |
[78] |
Moss, R A. (2013) A Clinical Biopsychological Theory of Loss-Related Depression. J Neuropsychother 1: 56-65. doi: 10.12744/ijnpt.2013.0056-0065
![]() |
[79] |
Huang, Y-J, Lin, C-H, Lane, H-Y, Tsai, G E. (2012) NMDA Neurotransmission Dysfunction in Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Alzheimer's Disease. Curr Neuropharmacol 10:272-285. doi: 10.2174/157015912803217288
![]() |
[80] |
Snyder EM, Nong Y, Almeida CG, Paul S, Moran T, Choi EY, Nairn AC, Salter MW, Lombroso,PJ, Gouras GK, et al. (2005) Regulation of NMDA receptor trafficking by amyloid-β. Nat Neurosci 8: 1051-1058. doi: 10.1038/nn1503
![]() |
[81] |
Stam CJ, van Walsum, A M van C, Pijnenburg YA, Berendse HW, de Munck JC, Scheltens P, van Dijk BW. (2002) Generalized synchronization of MEG recordings in Alzheimer's disease: evidence for involvement of the gamma band. J Clin Neurophysiol 19: 562-574. doi: 10.1097/00004691-200212000-00010
![]() |
[82] |
Gandal MJ, Edgar JC, Ehrlichman RS, Mehta M, Roberts TPL, Siegel SJ. (2010) Validating γ Oscillations and Delayed Auditory Responses as Translational Biomarkers of Autism. Biol Psychiatry 68: 1100-1106. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.09.031
![]() |
[83] |
Tarabeux J, Kebir O, Gauthier J, Hamdan FF, Xiong L, Piton A, Spiegelman D, Henrion É Millet, B Fathalli, F et al. (2011) Rare mutations in N-methyl-D-aspartate glutamate receptors in autism spectrum disorders and schizophrenia. Transl Psychiatry 1: e55. doi: 10.1038/tp.2011.52
![]() |
[84] |
Chance SA, Casanova MF, Switala AE, Crow TJ. (2008) Auditory cortex asymmetry, altered minicolumn spacing and absence of ageing effects in schizophrenia. Brain 131: 3178-3192. doi: 10.1093/brain/awn211
![]() |
[85] |
Di Rosa E, Crow TJ, Walker MA, Black G, Chance SA. (2009) Reduced neuron density, enlarged minicolumn spacing and altered ageing effects in fusiform cortex in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res 166: 102-115. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2008.04.007
![]() |
[86] |
Casanova MF, Kooten IAJ van, Switala AE, Engeland H van, Heinsen H, Steinbusch HWM, Hof PR, Trippe J, Stone J, Schmitz C. (2006) Minicolumnar abnormalities in autism. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 112: 287-303. doi: 10.1007/s00401-006-0085-5
![]() |
[87] | Courchesne E, Mouton PR, Calhoun ME, Ahrens-Barbeau C, Hallet MJ, Barnes CC, Pierce K, Semendeferi K (2013). An Overabundance of Prefrontal Cortex Neurons Underlies Early Brain Overgrowth in Autism. Neurostereology Unbiased Stereol Neural Syst: 73-83. |
[88] |
Chance SA, Casanova MF, Switala AE, Crow TJ Esiri MM. (2006) Minicolumn thinning in temporal lobe association cortex but not primary auditory cortex in normal human ageing. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 111: 459-464. doi: 10.1007/s00401-005-0014-z
![]() |
[89] |
Chance SA, Clover L, Cousijn H, Currah L, Pettingill R Esiri MM. (2011) Microanatomical Correlates of Cognitive Ability and Decline: Normal Ageing, MCI, and Alzheimer's Disease. Cereb Cortex 21: 1870-1878. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhq264
![]() |
[90] |
Courchesne E and Pierce K. (2005) Why the frontal cortex in autism might be talking only to itself: local over-connectivity but long-distance disconnection. Curr Opin Neurobiol 15:225-230. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2005.03.001
![]() |
[91] |
Cho RY, Konecky RO, Carter CS. (2006) Impairments in frontal cortical γ synchrony and cognitive control in schizophrenia. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103: 19878-19883. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0609440103
![]() |
1. | Dipti Ladli, Kanhaiya Lal, Kiran Jalem, Avinash Kumar Ranjan, 2020, chapter 7, 9781799850274, 122, 10.4018/978-1-7998-5027-4.ch007 | |
2. | Akash Anand, 2020, chapter 10, 9781799850274, 180, 10.4018/978-1-7998-5027-4.ch010 | |
3. | Ramandeep Kaur M. Malhi, Akash Anand, Prashant K. Srivastava, G. Sandhya Kiran, George P. Petropoulos, Christos Chalkias, An Integrated Spatiotemporal Pattern Analysis Model to Assess and Predict the Degradation of Protected Forest Areas, 2020, 9, 2220-9964, 530, 10.3390/ijgi9090530 | |
4. | Loubna Khalile, Hassan Rhinane, Abdelhadi Kaoukaya, Hicham Lahlaoi, Forest Cover Monitoring and Change Detection in Nfifikh Forest (Morocco), 2018, 10, 2151-1950, 219, 10.4236/jgis.2018.102011 | |
5. | Avinash Kumar Ranjan, Debasmita Sahoo, A. K. Gorai, Quantitative assessment of landscape transformation due to coal mining activity using earth observation satellite data in Jharsuguda coal mining region, Odisha, India, 2021, 23, 1387-585X, 4484, 10.1007/s10668-020-00784-0 | |
6. | Prachi Singh, Akash Anand, Prashant K. Srivastava, Arjun Singh, Prem Chandra Pandey, 2021, 9781119615972, 170, 10.1002/9781119616016.ch11 | |
7. | KUMAR RANJAN AVINASH, KANGA SHRUTI, DYNAMIC CHANGES IN MANGROVE FOREST AND LU/LC VARIATION ANALYSIS OVER INDIAN SUNDARBAN DELTA IN WEST BENGAL (INDIA) USING MULTI-TEMPORAL SATELLITE DATA, 2018, 13, 0973-2632, 9, 10.26634/jfet.13.3.14226 | |
8. | Avinash Kumar Ranjan, Bikash Ranjan Parida, Paddy acreage mapping and yield prediction using sentinel-based optical and SAR data in Sahibganj district, Jharkhand (India), 2019, 27, 2366-3286, 399, 10.1007/s41324-019-00246-4 | |
9. | ANAND AKASH, ASHWINI KUMAR, G. PATIL RAMAPPA, REMOTE SENSING BASED APPROACH ON RECENT CHANGES IN PLATFORM OF RIVER GANGA FROM MIRZAPUR TO BALLIA, 2018, 13, 0973-2632, 19, 10.26634/jfet.13.4.14471 | |
10. | Manish Kumar Pandey, Prashant K. Srivastava, George P. Petropoulos, 2021, 9780128186176, 429, 10.1016/B978-0-12-818617-6.00006-8 | |
11. | Swati Maurya, Prashant K. Srivastava, Aradhana Yaduvanshi, Akash Anand, George P. Petropoulos, Lu Zhuo, R.K. Mall, Soil erosion in future scenario using CMIP5 models and earth observation datasets, 2021, 594, 00221694, 125851, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125851 | |
12. | Avinash Kumar Ranjan, Amit Kumar Gorai, Characterization of vegetation dynamics using MODIS satellite products over stone-mining dominated Rajmahal Hills in Jharkhand, India, 2022, 27, 23529385, 100802, 10.1016/j.rsase.2022.100802 | |
13. | Akash Anand, 2022, chapter 21, 9781668456781, 402, 10.4018/978-1-6684-5678-1.ch021 | |
14. | N. Mohan Reddy, Ishtiyak Ahmad Peerzada, Mohammad Moonis, Ombir Singh, 2022, Chapter 19, 978-981-19-0070-9, 399, 10.1007/978-981-19-0071-6_19 | |
15. | Arvind Chandra Pandey, Neha Kumari, Shahbaz Ahmad, Amit Kumar, Purabi Saikia, Bikash Parida, Satendra Kumar Chaudhary, Nikhil Lele, Evaluating biochemical and biophysical characteristics of tropical deciduous forests of eastern India using remote sensing and in-situ parameter estimation, 2023, 29, 23529385, 100909, 10.1016/j.rsase.2022.100909 | |
16. | Satendra Kumar Chaudhary, Arvind Chandra Pandey, Bikash Ranjan Parida, Saurabh Kumar Gupta, Using geoinformatics to link forest fire severity and fragmentation in India's Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary, 2022, 63, 0564-3295, 453, 10.1007/s42965-021-00202-0 | |
17. | A. Nagaraju, M.Ajith Kumar reddy, CH. Venugopal reddy, R. Mohandas, 2021, Multifactor Analysis to Predict Best Crop using Xg-Boost Algorithm, 978-1-6654-1571-2, 155, 10.1109/ICOEI51242.2021.9452918 | |
18. | Avinash Kumar Ranjan, Bikash Ranjan Parida, Jadunandan Dash, Amit Kumar Gorai, Quantifying the impacts of opencast mining on vegetation dynamics over eastern India using the long-term Landsat-series satellite dataset, 2022, 71, 15749541, 101812, 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101812 | |
19. | Ramandeep Kaur M. Malhi, Akash Anand, Prashant K. Srivastava, Sumit K. Chaudhary, Manish K. Pandey, Mukund Dev Behera, Amit Kumar, Prachi Singh, G. Sandhya Kiran, Synergistic evaluation of Sentinel 1 and 2 for biomass estimation in a tropical forest of India, 2022, 69, 02731177, 1752, 10.1016/j.asr.2021.03.035 | |
20. | Garima Toor, Tarush Chandra, 2022, chapter 11, 9781799883319, 219, 10.4018/978-1-7998-8331-9.ch011 | |
21. | Ionuț Șandric, Radu Irimia, George P. Petropoulos, Akash Anand, Prashant K. Srivastava, Alin Pleșoianu, Ioannis Faraslis, Dimitrios Stateras, Dionissios Kalivas, Tree's detection & health's assessment from ultra-high resolution UAV imagery and deep learning, 2022, 37, 1010-6049, 10459, 10.1080/10106049.2022.2036824 | |
22. | Lili Chang, Rui Zhang, Chunsheng Wang, Evaluation and Prediction of Landslide Susceptibility in Yichang Section of Yangtze River Basin Based on Integrated Deep Learning Algorithm, 2022, 14, 2072-4292, 2717, 10.3390/rs14112717 | |
23. | Shahbaz Ahmad, Arvind Chandra Pandey, Amit Kumar, Nikhil V. Lele, Bimal K. Bhattacharya, Primary productivity estimation of forest based on in-situ biophysical parameters and sentinel satellite data using vegetation photosynthesis model in an eastern Indian tropical dry deciduous forest, 2022, 63, 0564-3295, 409, 10.1007/s42965-022-00220-6 | |
24. | Zhe Jia, Anchen Qin, Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil, Evaluation of the spatial distribution of scenic resources based on 3S technology: A case study of the Yesanpo National Park, 2022, 17, 1932-6203, e0269841, 10.1371/journal.pone.0269841 | |
25. | Avinash Kumar Ranjan, Bikash Ranjan Parida, Jadunandan Dash, Amit Kumar Gorai, Evaluating Impacts of Opencast Stone Mining on Vegetation Primary Production and Transpiration over Rajmahal Hills, 2023, 15, 2071-1050, 8005, 10.3390/su15108005 | |
26. | Siti Latifah, Farid Akhsani, Eva Indra Sofiana, Mohammad Riski Ferdiansah, Land cover change assessment using random forest and CA markov from remote sensing images in the protected forest of South Malang, Indonesia, 2023, 32, 23529385, 101061, 10.1016/j.rsase.2023.101061 | |
27. | Mrinmay Mandal, Nilanjana Das Chatterjee, 2023, Chapter 6, 978-3-031-33605-8, 103, 10.1007/978-3-031-33606-5_6 | |
28. | Pawan Kumar Thakur, Sher Singh Samant, Raj Kumar Verma, Atul Saini, Monika Chauhan, Monitoring forest cover changes and its impact on land surface temperature using geospatial technique in Talra Wildlife Sanctuary, Shimla, India, 2024, 1573-2975, 10.1007/s10668-023-04347-x | |
29. | Ryan Nedd, Katie Light, Marcia Owens, Neil James, Elijah Johnson, Aavudai Anandhi, A Synthesis of Land Use/Land Cover Studies: Definitions, Classification Systems, Meta-Studies, Challenges and Knowledge Gaps on a Global Landscape, 2021, 10, 2073-445X, 994, 10.3390/land10090994 | |
30. | Huijuan Wang, Zhiguo Qi, Haiming Yan, Huicai Yang, Variation Characteristics of Land Use Change Within the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region During 1985–2022, 2024, 13, 2073-445X, 1997, 10.3390/land13121997 | |
31. | Dayamoy Mandal, Debasis Ghosh, Multitemporal Assessment of Ecosystem Service Values and Carbon Sequestration in a Protected Ecosystem: A Case Study from Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary in Jharkhand, India, 2025, 19, 1735-6865, 10.1007/s41742-025-00782-y | |
32. | Avinash Kumar Ranjan, Kamlesh Kumar Sahoo, Pasupunti Manasa, Amit Kumar Gorai, Assessing the Role of Urban Expansion in an Industrial City (Rourkela, India) on Land Use/Land Cover Dynamics and its Impacts on Aerosols and Land Surface Temperature, 2025, 0255-660X, 10.1007/s12524-025-02222-y |
Year | Satellite date | Resolution | Data source |
2009 | LISS-Ⅲ | 23.5m | BHUVAN |
2011 | LISS-Ⅲ | 23.5m | BHUVAN |
2013 | LISS-Ⅲ | 23.5m | BHUVAN |
2015 | LANDSAT-TM | 30m | USGS |
2016 | LANDSAT-TM | 30m | USGS |
LU/LC Classes | Rank | Sample Size |
VDF | 1 | 1/15*250=16.67 |
MF | 2 | 2/15*250=33.33 |
SETTELEMENTS | 4 | 4/15*250=66.67 |
WATERBODY | 5 | 5/15*250=83.33 |
BARELAND/OTHERS | 3 | 3/15*250=50 |
TOTAL | 15 | 250 |
LU/LC CLASS | 2009 | 2011 | 2013 | 2015 | 2016 | |||||
Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | |
(Km2) | (%) | (Km2) | (%) | (Km2) | (%) | (Km2) | (%) | (Km2) | (%) | |
VDF | 166.57 | 42.80 | 164.30 | 42.20 | 159.43 | 40.94 | 156.75 | 40.26 | 154.13 | 39.56 |
MF | 132.68 | 34.10 | 102.54 | 26.33 | 87.49 | 22.47 | 95.76 | 24.60 | 81.126 | 20.84 |
SETTELEMENTS | 40.16 | 10.31 | 41.23 | 10.59 | 49.05 | 12.60 | 50.06 | 12.85 | 52.01 | 13.36 |
WATERBODY | 6.39 | 1.64 | 7.44 | 1.91 | 6.05 | 1.55 | 6.719 | 1.72 | 6.966 | 1.78 |
BARELAND/OTHERS | 43.37 | 11.14 | 73.86 | 18.96 | 87.32 | 22.43 | 80.01 | 20.55 | 95.02 | 24.41 |
Pillars ID | Examined GPS Coordinates (Degree, Minute, Second) | Prior GPS Coordinates (Degree, Minute, Second) | Variation in Pillars Distance (m) |
1 | 86 09' 09.0'' E 22 53' 08.6'' N | 86 9'8.97"E 22 53'9.287"N | -21.151802 |
3 | 86 09' 17.1'' E 22 53' 06.3'' N | 86 9'12.071"E 22 53'9.799"N | -70.764403 |
4 | 86 09' 22.8'' E 22 53' 04.6'' N | 86 9'17.078"E 22 53'7.968"N | -52.270414 |
5 | 86 09' 26.3'' E 22 53' 04.0'' N | 86 9'22.786"E 22 53'6.662"N | -18.493981 |
7 | 86 09' 33.5'' E 22 53' 03.9'' N | 86 9'29.935"E 22 53'5.493"N | -3.100787 |
8 | 86 09' 35.5'' E 22 53' 03.8'' N | 86 9'33.487"E 22 53'5.773"N | -3.000650 |
11 | 86 09' 41.0'' E 22 53' 03.5'' N | 86 9'41.127"E 22 53'4.738"N | -12.335158 |
14 | 86 09' 57.7'' E 22 53' 06.0'' N | 86 9'51.837"E 22 53'8.086"N | -55.371204 |
15 | 86 09' 58.8'' E 22 53' 04.6'' N | 86 9'57.761"E 22 53'6.031"N | -43.078794 |
16 | 86 10' 02.4'' E 22 53' 03.8'' N | 86 9'58.86 "E 22 53'4.603"N | -24.695555 |
18 | 86 09' 09.0'' E 22 53' 08.6'' N | 86 9'8.97"E 22 53'9.287"N | -21.151802 |
Pillars ID | Examined GPS Coordinates (Degree, Minute, Second) | Prior GPS Coordinates (Degree, Minute, Second) | Variation In Pillars Distance (m) |
26 | 86 07' 35.8'' E 22 53' 46.6'' N | 86 7' 35.62"E 22 53' 46.651"N | -5.36 |
53 | 86 07' 5.7" E 22 53' 26.3"N | 86 6' 55.873"E 22 53' 29.852"N | -87.837663 |
54 | 86 07' 8.4" E 22 53' 25.6"N | 86 6' 59.341"E 22 53' 29.027"N | -56.218106 |
(A) Year- 2009 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | MF | Waterbody | Settlement | Bareland/Others | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 87.5 |
MF | 3 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 72.73 |
Waterbody | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 100 |
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Total | 10 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 47 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 70 | 80 | 80 | 100 | 100 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 91.48 | ||||||
(B) Year- 2011 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | Waterbody | MF | Bareland/Others | Settlement | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Waterbody | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
MF | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 100 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 12 | 83.33 |
Total | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 50 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 100 | 100 | 90 | 90 | 100 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 95.00 | ||||||
(C) Year- 2013 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | MF | Waterbody | Settlement | Bareland/Others | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 83.33 |
MF | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Waterbody | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 100 |
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Total | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 50 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 100 | 100 | 80 | 100 | 100 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 95.00 | ||||||
(D) Year- 2015 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | Waterbody | MF | Bareland/Others | Settlement | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Waterbody | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
MF | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 11 | 81.82 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 11 | 90.91 |
Total | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 50 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 100 | 100 | 90 | 80 | 100 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 92.59 | ||||||
(E) Year- 2016 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | MF | Waterbody | Settlement | Bareland/Others | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
MF | 0 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 85.71 |
Waterbody | 0 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 64.29 |
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Total | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 50 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 100 | 60 | 90 | 100 | 90 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 85.37 |
Year | Satellite date | Resolution | Data source |
2009 | LISS-Ⅲ | 23.5m | BHUVAN |
2011 | LISS-Ⅲ | 23.5m | BHUVAN |
2013 | LISS-Ⅲ | 23.5m | BHUVAN |
2015 | LANDSAT-TM | 30m | USGS |
2016 | LANDSAT-TM | 30m | USGS |
LU/LC Classes | Rank | Sample Size |
VDF | 1 | 1/15*250=16.67 |
MF | 2 | 2/15*250=33.33 |
SETTELEMENTS | 4 | 4/15*250=66.67 |
WATERBODY | 5 | 5/15*250=83.33 |
BARELAND/OTHERS | 3 | 3/15*250=50 |
TOTAL | 15 | 250 |
LU/LC CLASS | 2009 | 2011 | 2013 | 2015 | 2016 | |||||
Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | Area | |
(Km2) | (%) | (Km2) | (%) | (Km2) | (%) | (Km2) | (%) | (Km2) | (%) | |
VDF | 166.57 | 42.80 | 164.30 | 42.20 | 159.43 | 40.94 | 156.75 | 40.26 | 154.13 | 39.56 |
MF | 132.68 | 34.10 | 102.54 | 26.33 | 87.49 | 22.47 | 95.76 | 24.60 | 81.126 | 20.84 |
SETTELEMENTS | 40.16 | 10.31 | 41.23 | 10.59 | 49.05 | 12.60 | 50.06 | 12.85 | 52.01 | 13.36 |
WATERBODY | 6.39 | 1.64 | 7.44 | 1.91 | 6.05 | 1.55 | 6.719 | 1.72 | 6.966 | 1.78 |
BARELAND/OTHERS | 43.37 | 11.14 | 73.86 | 18.96 | 87.32 | 22.43 | 80.01 | 20.55 | 95.02 | 24.41 |
Pillars ID | Examined GPS Coordinates (Degree, Minute, Second) | Prior GPS Coordinates (Degree, Minute, Second) | Variation in Pillars Distance (m) |
1 | 86 09' 09.0'' E 22 53' 08.6'' N | 86 9'8.97"E 22 53'9.287"N | -21.151802 |
3 | 86 09' 17.1'' E 22 53' 06.3'' N | 86 9'12.071"E 22 53'9.799"N | -70.764403 |
4 | 86 09' 22.8'' E 22 53' 04.6'' N | 86 9'17.078"E 22 53'7.968"N | -52.270414 |
5 | 86 09' 26.3'' E 22 53' 04.0'' N | 86 9'22.786"E 22 53'6.662"N | -18.493981 |
7 | 86 09' 33.5'' E 22 53' 03.9'' N | 86 9'29.935"E 22 53'5.493"N | -3.100787 |
8 | 86 09' 35.5'' E 22 53' 03.8'' N | 86 9'33.487"E 22 53'5.773"N | -3.000650 |
11 | 86 09' 41.0'' E 22 53' 03.5'' N | 86 9'41.127"E 22 53'4.738"N | -12.335158 |
14 | 86 09' 57.7'' E 22 53' 06.0'' N | 86 9'51.837"E 22 53'8.086"N | -55.371204 |
15 | 86 09' 58.8'' E 22 53' 04.6'' N | 86 9'57.761"E 22 53'6.031"N | -43.078794 |
16 | 86 10' 02.4'' E 22 53' 03.8'' N | 86 9'58.86 "E 22 53'4.603"N | -24.695555 |
18 | 86 09' 09.0'' E 22 53' 08.6'' N | 86 9'8.97"E 22 53'9.287"N | -21.151802 |
Pillars ID | Examined GPS Coordinates (Degree, Minute, Second) | Prior GPS Coordinates (Degree, Minute, Second) | Variation In Pillars Distance (m) |
26 | 86 07' 35.8'' E 22 53' 46.6'' N | 86 7' 35.62"E 22 53' 46.651"N | -5.36 |
53 | 86 07' 5.7" E 22 53' 26.3"N | 86 6' 55.873"E 22 53' 29.852"N | -87.837663 |
54 | 86 07' 8.4" E 22 53' 25.6"N | 86 6' 59.341"E 22 53' 29.027"N | -56.218106 |
(A) Year- 2009 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | MF | Waterbody | Settlement | Bareland/Others | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 87.5 |
MF | 3 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 72.73 |
Waterbody | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 100 |
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Total | 10 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 47 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 70 | 80 | 80 | 100 | 100 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 91.48 | ||||||
(B) Year- 2011 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | Waterbody | MF | Bareland/Others | Settlement | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Waterbody | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
MF | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 100 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 12 | 83.33 |
Total | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 50 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 100 | 100 | 90 | 90 | 100 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 95.00 | ||||||
(C) Year- 2013 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | MF | Waterbody | Settlement | Bareland/Others | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 83.33 |
MF | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Waterbody | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 100 |
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Total | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 50 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 100 | 100 | 80 | 100 | 100 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 95.00 | ||||||
(D) Year- 2015 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | Waterbody | MF | Bareland/Others | Settlement | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Waterbody | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
MF | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 11 | 81.82 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 11 | 90.91 |
Total | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 50 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 100 | 100 | 90 | 80 | 100 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 92.59 | ||||||
(E) Year- 2016 | |||||||
LU/LC Class | VDF | MF | Waterbody | Settlement | Bareland/Others | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) |
VDF | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
MF | 0 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 85.71 |
Waterbody | 0 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 64.29 |
Settlement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 100 |
Bareland/ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 100 |
Others | |||||||
Total | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 50 | |
Producer’s Accuracy(%) | 100 | 60 | 90 | 100 | 90 | ||
Overall Accuracy (%) | 85.37 |