Correction: Synergy of high-resolution radar and optical images satellite for identification and mapping of wetland macrophytes on the Danube Delta [Remote sensing, 12, 14, (2020) (2188)] DOI:

Abstract

The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [1]: These changes have no material impact on the conclusions of our paper. We apologize to our readers. 1. The sixth paragraph of Introduction currently reads as follows: [For dense reed surfaces, the radar signal is composed of the volumetric backscatter from the canopy elements, the result of the interaction of the radiation within the vegetation canopy, leaves, and stems, the surface backscatter from the ground surface, and the double-bounce interaction from radiation and return to the sensor (Figure 1b)]. We would like to make the following corrections: [For dense reed surfaces, the radar signal is composed of the double-bounce interaction from the radiation and return to the sensor (Figure 1b), the surface backscatter from the ground surface and the volumetric backscatter from the canopy elements, the result of the interaction of the radiation within the vegetation canopy, leaves, and stems (Figure 1c)]. 2. The first paragraph of the Study area currently reads as follows: The study was conducted in the Danube Delta (45°10'29" N, 29°22'58" E) (Figure 2). It is located in southeastern Romania and also in northern Ukraine. To set straight the scientific record we would like to make the following corrections: The study was conducted in the Danube Delta (45°10'29" N, 29°22'58" E) (Figure 2). It is located in southeastern Romania and southern Ukraine. 3. The titles of the Tables 3-5 reads as follows: Table 3. The OA significant results for detailed nomenclature classifications + simple nomenclature classifications. Table 4. Some examples of the best results by classification of user's accuracy (%) and producer's accuracy (%) of the Macrophytes. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2529; doi:10.3390/rs12162529 www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensingRemote Sens. 2020, 12, 2529 2 of 2 Table 5. The best results of producer's accuracy (PA), producer accuracy uncertainty (PAU), user'saccuracy (UA), and user accuracy uncertainty (UAU) by species of macrophytes. We would like to make the following additions: Table 3. The OA significant results for detailed nomenclature classifications + simple nomenclature classifications and standard errors. Table 4. Some examples of the best results by the classification of the user's accuracy (%), producer's accuracy (%) and standard errors of the macrophytes. Table 5. The best results of the producer's accuracy, user's accuracy and standard errors by species of macrophytes. 4. The first paragraph of Accuracy Assessment in Discussion currently reads as follows: However, the stack in combination with the radar increased accuracy, and this was found in the majority of the classifications, both for Pleiades and S2, and especially for the detailed nomenclature. To set straight the scientific record we would like to make the following corrections: The stack in combination with the radar increased the accuracy for Pleiades and S2, and especially for the detailed nomenclature.