4.6 Article

MODIS Sensor Capability to Burned Area Mapping-Assessment of Performance and Improvements Provided by the Latest Standard Products in Boreal Regions

期刊

SENSORS
卷 20, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s20185423

关键词

remote sensing; burned area; wildfire; MODIS; fire_CCI; pareto boundary

资金

  1. Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades (MCIU)
  2. Agencia Estatal de Investigacion (AEI)
  3. Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) [RTI2018-099171-B-I00]
  4. Universidad de Almeria [UAL-TIC-A023-B1]
  5. FEDER-ANDALUCIA Operating Program [UAL-TIC-A023-B1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents an accuracy assessment of the main global scale Burned Area (BA) products, derived from daily images of the Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Fire_CCI 5.1 and MCD64A1 C6, as well as the previous versions of both products (Fire_CCI 4.1 and MCD45A1 C5). The exercise was conducted on the boreal region of Alaska during the period 2000-2017. All the BA polygons registered by the Alaska Fire Service were used as reference data. Both new versions doubled the annual BA estimate compared to the previous versions (66% for Fire_CCI 5.1 versus 35% for v4.1, and 63% for MCD64A1 C6 versus 28% for C5), reducing the omission error (OE) by almost one half (39% versus 67% for Fire_CCI and 48% versus 74% for MCD) and slightly increasing the commission error (CE) (7.5% versus 7% for Fire_CCI and 18% versus 7% for MCD). The Fire_CCI 5.1 product (CE = 7.5%, OE = 39%) presented the best results in terms of positional accuracy with respect to MCD64A1 C6 (CE = 18%, OE = 48%). These results suggest that Fire_CCI 5.1 could be suitable for those users who employ BA standard products in geoinformatics analysis techniques for wildfire management, especially in Boreal regions. The Pareto boundary analysis, performed on an annual basis, showed that there is still a potential theoretical capacity to improve the MODIS sensor-based BA algorithms.

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

4.6
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