4.4 Article

A modified flexible spatiotemporal data fusion model

期刊

FRONTIERS OF EARTH SCIENCE
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 601-614

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11707-019-0800-x

关键词

MFSDAF; enhanced linear regression; land cover change; heterogeneous; time-series

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Remote sensing spatiotemporal fusion models blend multi-source images of different spatial resolutions to create synthetic images with high resolution and frequency, contributing to time series research where high quality observations are not available with sufficient frequency. However, existing models are vulnerable to spatial heterogeneity and land cover changes, which are frequent in human-dominated regions. To obtain quality time series of satellite images in a human-dominated region, this study developed the Modified Flexible Spatial-temporal Data Fusion (MFSDAF) approach based on the Flexible Spatial-temporal Data Fusion (FSDAF) model by using the enhanced linear regression (ELR). Multiple experiments of various land cover change scenarios were conducted based on both actual and simulated satellite images, respectively. The proposed MFSDAF model was validated by using the correlation coefficient (r), relative root mean square error (RRMSE), and structural similarity (SSIM), and was then compared with the Enhanced Spatial and Temporal Adaptive Reflectance Fusion Model (ESTARFM) and FSDAF models. Results show that in the presence of significant land cover change, MFSDAF showed a maximum increase in r, RRMSE, and SSIM of 0.0313, 0.0109 and 0.049, respectively, compared to FSDAF, while ESTARFM performed best with less temporal difference of in the input images. In conditions of stable landscape changes, the three performance statistics indicated a small advantage of MFSDAF over FSDAF, but were 0.0286, 0.0102, 0.0317 higher than for ESTARFM, respectively. MFSDAF showed greater accuracy of capturing subtle changes and created high-precision images from both actual and simulated satellite images.

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

4.4
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