4.5 Article

Monitoring live fuel moisture content of heathland, shrubland and sclerophyll forest in south-eastern Australia using MODIS data

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 257-269

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/WF11024

Keywords

fire risk; foliage water content; KBDI; spectral indices

Categories

Funding

  1. GeoQuEST Research Centre (University of Wollongong)
  2. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) Terrestrial Biodiversity Network
  3. NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water
  4. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
  5. Royal National Park
  6. Thirlemere Lake National Park
  7. Bargo State Conservation Area

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Live fuel moisture content is an important variable for assessing fire risk. Satellite observations provide the potential for monitoring fuel moisture across large areas. The objective of this study was to use data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer to monitor live fuel moisture content of three fire-prone vegetation types (shrubland, heathland and sclerophyll forest) in south-eastern Australia. The performances of four spectral indices (Normalised Difference Vegetation Index, Visible Atmospherically Resistant Index, Normalised Difference Infrared Index centred on 1650 nm and Normalised Difference Water Index) were compared. Models based on Visible Atmospherically Resistant Index and Normalised Difference Infrared Index centred on 1650 nm provided the best results (R-2 values of 0.537 and 0.586). An empirical model based on these two indices was developed and its performance compared with a meteorological index traditionally used in this context, the Keetch-Byram Drought Index. The empirical model (R-2 = 0.692) outperformed the meteorological index (R-2 = 0.151), showing an enhanced capability to predict live fuel moisture content of the fire-prone vegetation types considered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available