4.7 Article

NDVI saturation adjustment: A new approach for improving cropland performance estimates in the Greater Platte River Basin, USA

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 30, 期 -, 页码 1-6

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.041

关键词

eMODIS; Vegetation index; NDVI saturation adjustment; RVI; Ecosystem productivity; Cropland performance; Greater Platte River Basin

资金

  1. USGS [G08PC91508, G10PC00044]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we developed a new approach that adjusted normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) pixel values that were near saturation to better characterize the cropland performance (CP) in the Greater Platte River Basin (GPRB), USA. The relationship between NDVI and the ratio vegetation index (RVI) at high NDVI values was investigated, and an empirical equation for estimating saturation-adjusted NDVI (NDVIsat-adjust) based on RVI was developed. A 10-year (2000-2009) NDVIsat-adjust data set was developed using 250-m 7-day composite historical eMODIS (expedited Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) NDVI data. The growing season averaged NDVI (GSN), which is a proxy for ecosystem performance, was estimated and long-term NDVI non-saturation- and saturation-adjusted cropland performance (CPnon-sat-adjust, CPsat-adjust) maps were produced over the GPRB. The final CP maps were validated using National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) crop yield data. The relationship between CPsat-adjust and the NASS average corn yield data (r = 0.78, 113 samples) is stronger than the relationship between CPnon-sat-adjust and the NASS average corn yield data (r=0.67, 113 samples), indicating that the new CPsat-adjust map reduces the NDVI saturation effects and is in good agreement with the corn yield ground observations. Results demonstrate that the NDVI saturation adjustment approach improves the quality of the original GSN map and better depicts the actual vegetation conditions of the GPRB cropland systems. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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