4.7 Article

Acquisition probability differences in cloud coverage of the available Landsat observations over mainland Southeast Asia from 1986 to 2015

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages 437-450

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17538947.2017.1327619

Keywords

Landsat; cloud coverage (CC); acquisition probability (AP); mainland Southeast Asia; land cover and land use changes

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [41301090, 41271117]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Landsat data are the longest available records that consistently document global change. However, the extent and degree of cloud coverage typically determine its usability, especially in the tropics. In this study, scene-based metadata from the U.S. Geological Survey Landsat inventories, ten-day, monthly, seasonal, and annual acquisition probabilities (AP) of targeted images at various cloud coverage thresholds (10% to 100%) were statistically analyzed using available Landsat TM, ETM+, and OLI observations over mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA) from 1986 to 2015. Four significant results were found. First, the cumulative average acquisition probability of available Landsat observations over MSEA at the 30% cloud cover (CC) threshold was approximately 41.05%. Second, monthly and ten-day level probability statistics for the 30% CC threshold coincide with the temporal distribution of the dry and rainy seasons. This demonstrates that Landsat images acquired during the dry season satisfy the requirements needed for land cover monitoring. Third, differences in acquisition probabilities at the 30% CC threshold are different between the western and eastern regions of MSEA. Finally, the ability of TM, ETM+, and OLI to acquire high-quality imagery has gradually enhanced over time, especially during the dry season, along with consequently larger probabilities at lower CC thresholds.

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