4.7 Article

Analysis of the Scaling Effects in the Area-Averaged Fraction of Vegetation Cover Retrieved Using an NDVI-Isoline-Based Linear Mixture Model

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 4, 期 7, 页码 2156-2180

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs4072156

关键词

fraction of vegetation cover; scaling effect; monotonicity; NDVI; resolution transformation model

资金

  1. Circle for the Promotion of Science and Engineering
  2. NASA [NNX11AH25G]
  3. JSPS KAKENHI [21510019]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21510019] Funding Source: KAKEN
  5. NASA [143864, NNX11AH25G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The spectral unmixing of a linear mixture model (LMM) with Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) constraints was performed to estimate the fraction of vegetation cover (FVC) over the earth's surface in an effort to facilitate long-term surface vegetation monitoring using a set of environmental satellites. Although the integrated use of multiple sensors improves the spatial and temporal quality of the data sets, area-averaged FVC values obtained using an LMM-based algorithm suffer from systematic biases caused by differences in the spatial resolutions of the sensors, known as scaling effects. The objective of this study is to investigate the scaling effects in area-averaged FVC values using analytical approaches by focusing on the monotonic behavior of the scaling effects as a function of the spatial resolution. The analysis was conducted based on a resolution transformation model introduced recently by the authors in the accompanying paper (Obata et al., 2012). The maximum value of the scaling effects present in FVC values was derived analytically and validated numerically. A series of derivations identified the error bounds (inherent uncertainties) of the averaged FVC values caused by the scaling effect. The results indicate a fundamental difference between the NDVI and the retrieved FVC from NDVI, which should be noted for accuracy improvement of long-term observation datasets.

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