4.7 Article

A global study of NDVI difference among moderate-resolution satellite sensors

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.09.008

关键词

NDVI difference; LULC; AVHRR; MODIS; VIIRS

资金

  1. State Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China [41171272]
  2. [NIGLAS2015QD08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Moderate-resolution sensors, including AVHRR (Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer), MODIS (MODerate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) and VIIRS (Visible-Infrared Imager-Radiometer Suite), have provided over forty years of global scientific data. In the form of NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index), these data greatly benefit environmental studies. However, their usefulness is compromised by sensor differences. This study investigates the global NDVI difference and its spatio-temporal patterns among typical moderate-resolution sensors, as supported by state-of-the-art remote sensing derived products. Our study demonstrates that the atmosphere plays a secondary role to LULC (Land Use/Land Cover) in inter-sensor NDVI differences. With reference to AVHRR/3, AVHRR/1 and 2 exhibit negative NDVI biases for vegetated land cover types. In summer (July), the area of negative bias shifts northward, and the magnitude increases in the Northern Hemisphere. For most LULC types, the bias generally shifts in the negative direction from winter (January) to summer. A linear regression of the NDVI difference versus NDVI shows a close correlation between the slope value and vegetation phenology. Overall, NDVI differences are controlled by LULC type and vegetation phenology. Our study can be used to generate a long-term, consistent NDVI data set from composite MODIS and AVHRR NDVI data. LULC-dependent and temporally variable correction equations are recommended to reduce inter sensor NDVI differences. (C) 2016 International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Inc. (ISPRS). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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