4.7 Article

Comparison between SMOS Vegetation Optical Depth products and MODIS vegetation indices over crop zones of the USA

期刊

REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
卷 140, 期 -, 页码 396-406

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2013.07.021

关键词

SMOS; Vegetation optical depth; L-band radiometry; Optical vegetation indices

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) mission provides multi-angular, dual-polarised brightness temperatures at 1.4 GHz, from which global soil moisture and vegetation optical depth (tau) products are retrieved. This paper presents a study of SMOS' tau product in 2010 and 2011 for crop zones of the USA. Retrieved tau values for 504 crop nodes were compared to optical/IR vegetation indices from the MODES (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite sensor, including the Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVE), Leaf Area Index (LAI), and a Normalised Difference Water Index (NOW!) product. tau values were observed to increase during the growing season and decrease during senescence in these areas, as did MODIS vegetation indices. SMOS' tau values generally peaked later than MODES LAI values, with an estimated time difference of about 19 days. A linear regression between tau and the MODIS products was carried out for each node and values of the determination coefficient, R-2, slope, b' and intercept, b '' were found. The average R-2 value varied from 0.32 to 035 for the different vegetation indices. The linear regression between LAI and tau produced an average slope of b' = 0.06, and an average intercept of b '' = 0.14. The effects of crop fraction and dominant crop type were investigated and crop fraction was found to have a low effect on R-2 values. R-2 values appeared to be lower for wheat and hay and higher for corn. b' and b '' values had higher standard deviations for wheat but were generally close to the mean values for corn, soybean and hay. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据