4.3 Article

Extraction of fractional vegetation cover in arid desert area based on Chinese GF-6 satellite

期刊

OPEN GEOSCIENCES
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 416-430

出版社

DE GRUYTER POLAND SP Z O O
DOI: 10.1515/geo-2020-0241

关键词

vegetation index; pixel dichotomy model; fractional vegetation cover; red edge band

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new vegetation index RENDVI based on GF-6 satellite was proposed for estimating FVC, with the most reasonable estimation achieved using the RENDVI2 model. Results showed a good linear correlation between estimated FVC and field-investigated FVC, with the highest accuracy obtained at 2% confidence level.
The red edge band is considered as one of the diagnosable characteristics of green plants, but the large-scale remote sensing retrieval of fractional vegetation coverage (FVC) based on the red edge band is still rare. To explore the application of the red edge band in the remote sensing estimation of FVC, this study proposed a new vegetation index (normalized difference red edge index, RENDVI) based on the two red edge bands of Chinese GaoFen-6 satellite (GF-6). The FVC estimated by using three vegetation indices ( NDVI, RENDVI1, and RENDVI2) were evaluated based on the field survey FVC obtained in Minqin Basin of Gansu Province. The results showed that there was a good linear correlation between the FVC estimated by GF-6 WFV data and the FVC investigated in the field, and the most reasonable estimation of FVC was obtained based on RENDVI2 model (R-2 = 0.97611 and RMSE = 0.07075). Meanwhile, the impact of three confidence levels (1, 2, and 5%) on FVC was also analyzed in this study. FVC obtained from NDVI and RENDVI2 has the highest accuracy at 2% confidence, while FVC based on RENDVI1 achieved the best accuracy at 5% confidence. It could be concluded that it is feasible and reliable to estimate FVC based on red edge bands, and the GF-6 Wide Field View (WFV) data with high temporal and spatial resolution provide a new data source for remote sensing estimation of FVC.

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

4.3
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