4.7 Article

Making Landsat Time Series Consistent: Evaluating and Improving Landsat Analysis Ready Data

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs11010051

Keywords

Landsat time series; Analysis Ready Data; cloud and cloud shadow detection; BRDF correction; topographic correction; resampled data

Funding

  1. USGS-NASA Landsat Science Team(LST) Program for Toward Near Real-time Monitoring and Characterization of Land Surface Change for the Conterminous US [G17PS00256]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recently, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has released a new dataset, called Landsat Analysis Ready Data (ARD), which is designed specifically for facilitating time series analysis. In this study, we evaluated the temporal consistency of this new dataset and recommended several processing streamlines for improving data consistency. Specifically, we examined the impacts of data resampling, cloud/cloud shadow detection, Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) correction, and topographic correction on the temporal consistency of the Landsat Time Series (LTS). We have four major observations. First, single-resampled data (ARD) are generally more consistent than double-resampled data (re-projected Collection 1 data), but the difference is very minor. Second, the improved cloud and cloud shadow detection approach (e.g., Fmask 4.0 vs. 3.3) moderately increased data consistency. Third, BRDF correction contributed the most in making LTS consistent. Finally, we corrected the topographic effects by using several widely used algorithms, including Sun-Canopy-Sensor (SCS), a semiempirical SCS (SCS+C), and Illumination Correction (IC) algorithms, however they were found to have very limited or even negative impacts on the consistency of LTS. Therefore, we recommend using Landsat ARD with the improved cloud and cloud shadow detection approach (Fmask 4.0), and with BRDF correction for routine time series analysis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available