4.5 Article

Characterization and intercomparison of global moderate resolution leaf area index (LAI) products: Analysis of climatologies and theoretical uncertainties

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-BIOGEOSCIENCES
Volume 118, Issue 2, Pages 529-548

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/jgrg.20051

Keywords

leaf area index (LAI); climatology; theoretical uncertainty; relative uncertainty; intercomparison; MODIS

Funding

  1. Hundred Talent Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41171333]
  3. State Program for High-Tech Research and Development [2009AA122100]
  4. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2007CB714407]
  5. National Basic Research Program of China [2010CB950701]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Leaf area index (LAI) is a critical variable for land surface and climate modeling studies. Several global LAI products exist, and it is important to know how these products perform and what their uncertainties are. Five major global LAI productsMODIS, GEOV1, GLASS, GLOBMAP, and JRC-TIPwere compared between 2003 and 2010 at a 0.01 degrees spatial resolution and with a monthly time step. The daily Land-SAF product was used as a regional reference in order to evaluate the performance of other global products in Africa. Cross-sensor LAI conversion equations were derived for different biome types. Product uncertainties were assessed by looking into the product quantitative quality indicators (QQIs) attached to MODIS, GEOV1, and JRC-TIP. MODIS, GEOV1, GLASS, and GLOBMAP are generally consistent and show strong linear relationships between the products (R-2>0.74), with typical deviations of<0.5 for nonforest and<1.0 for forest biomes. JRC-TIP, the only effective LAI product, is about half the values of the other LAI products. The average uncertainties and relative uncertainties are in the following order: MODIS (0.17, 11.5%)

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