4.5 Article

An accuracy assessment of the MTBS burned area product for shrub-steppe fires in the northern Great Basin, United States

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 70-78

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/WF14131

Keywords

CSI; dNBR; MIRBI; RdNBR; remote sensing

Categories

Funding

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) [NNX11AO24G, NNX11AF19G]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although fire is a common disturbance in shrub-steppe, few studies have specifically tested burned area mapping accuracy in these semiarid to arid environments. We conducted a preliminary assessment of the accuracy of the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) burned area product on four shrub-steppe fires that exhibited varying degrees of within-fire patch heterogeneity. Independent burned area perimeters were derived through visual interpretation and were used to cross-compare the MTBS burned area perimeters with classifications produced using set thresholds on the Relativised differenced Normalised Burn Index (RdNBR), Mid-infrared Burn Index (MIRBI) and Char Soil Index (CSI). Overall, CSI provided the most consistent accuracies (96.3-98.6%), with only small commission errors (1.5-4.4%). MIRBI also had relatively high accuracies (92.2-97.9%) and small commission errors (2.1-10.8%). The MTBS burned area product had higher commission errors (4.3-15.5%), primarily due to inclusion of unburned islands and fingers within the fire perimeter. The RdNBR burned area maps exhibited lower accuracies (92.9-96.0%). However, the different indices when constrained by the MTBS perimeter provided variable results, with CSI providing the highest and least variable accuracies (97.4-99.1%). Studies seeking to use MTBS perimeters to analyse trends in burned area should apply spectral indices to constrain the final burned area maps. The present paper replaces a former paper of the same title (http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF13206), which was withdrawn owing to errors discovered in data analysis after the paper was accepted for publication.

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