4.7 Article

Calibrating Satellite-Based Indices of Burn Severity from UAV-Derived Metrics of a Burned Boreal Forest in NWT, Canada

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs9030279

关键词

forest fire; burn severity; composite burn index; normalized burn ratio; unmanned aerial vehicle; UAV; UAS; Landsat

资金

  1. Polar Knowledge Canada
  2. NRCan's TRACS project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wildfires are a dominant disturbance to boreal forests, and in North America, they typically cause widespread tree mortality. Forest fire burn severity is often measured at a plot scale using the Composite Burn Index (CBI), which was originally developed as a means of assigning severity levels to the Normalized Burn Ratio (NBR) computed from Landsat satellite imagery. Our study investigated the potential to map biophysical indicators of burn severity (residual green vegetation and charred organic surface) at very high (3 cm) resolution, using color orthomosaics and vegetation height models derived from UAV-based photographic surveys and Structure from Motion methods. These indicators were scaled to 30 m resolution Landsat pixel footprints and compared to the post-burn NBR (post-NBR) and differenced NBR (dNBR) ratios computed from pre- and post-fire Landsat imagery. The post-NBR showed the strongest relationship to both the fraction of charred surface (exponential R-2 = 0.79) and the fraction of green crown vegetation above 5 m (exponential R-2 = 0.81), while the dNBR was more closely related to the total green vegetation fraction (exponential R-2 = 0.69). Additionally, the UAV green fraction and Landsat indices could individually explain more than 50% of the variance in the overall CBI measured in 39 plots. These results provide a proof-of-concept for using low-cost UAV photogrammetric mapping to quantify key measures of boreal burn severity at landscape scales, which could be used to calibrate and assign a biophysical meaning to Landsat spectral indices for mapping severity at regional scales.

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