4.7 Article

Comparison of Thermal Infrared-Derived Maps of Irrigated and Non-Irrigated Vegetation in Urban and Non-Urban Areas of Southern California

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 12, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs12244102

关键词

remote sensing; urban land cover; ECOSTRESS; thermal imagery; irrigation; Google Earth Engine

资金

  1. NASA OCO-2 Science Team [17-OCO2-17-0025]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is important to understand the distribution of irrigated and non-irrigated vegetation in rapidly expanding urban areas that are experiencing climate-induced changes in water availability, such as Los Angeles, California. Mapping irrigated vegetation in Los Angeles is necessary for developing sustainable water use practices and accurately accounting for the megacity's carbon exchange and water balance changes. However, pre-existing maps of irrigated vegetation are largely limited to agricultural regions and are too coarse to resolve heterogeneous urban landscapes. Previous research suggests that irrigation has a strong cooling effect on vegetation, especially in semi-arid environments. The July 2018 launch of the ECOsystem Spaceborne Thermal Radiometer on Space Station (ECOSTRESS) offers an opportunity to test this hypothesis using retrieved land surface temperature (LST) data in complex, heterogeneous urban/non-urban environments. In this study, we leverage Landsat 8 optical imagery and 30 m sharpened afternoon summertime ECOSTRESS LST, then apply very high-resolution (0.6-10 m) vegetation fraction weighting to produce a map of irrigated and non-irrigated vegetation in Los Angeles. This classification was compared to other classifications using different combinations of sensors in order to offer a preliminary accuracy and uncertainty assessment. This approach verifies that ECOSTRESS LST data provides an accurate map (98.2% accuracy) of irrigated urban vegetation in southern California that has the potential to reduce uncertainties in regional carbon and hydrological cycle models.

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