4.7 Article

The benefit of synthetically generated RapidEye and Landsat 8 data fusion time series for riparian forest disturbance monitoring

期刊

REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
卷 177, 期 -, 页码 237-247

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2016.01.028

关键词

Apocheima cinerarius; Defoliator; ESTARFM; Image fusion; Insect disturbance; Tugai forest

资金

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research Fund [01LL0918G]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insect defoliation causes forest disturbances with complex spatial dynamics. In order to monitor affected areas, decision makers seek but often lack information with high spatial and temporal precision. Within the context of a riparian Tugai forest disturbed by the insect Apocheima cinerarius, this study examines whether the analysis of a RapidEye time series would benefit from the availability of synthetically generated images at the spatial resolution of RapidEye and the additional temporal resolution of Landsat 8. We applied the Enhanced Spatial and Temporal Adaptive Reflectance Fusion Model (ESTARFM) to downscale Landsat 8 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) scenes to concurrent RapidEye NDVI scenes. We a) performed a pixel-based regression analyses in order to evaluate the quality of the synthetically created NDVI products and b) examined if forest disturbance maps produced with synthetic images improve the accuracy of disturbance detection. The results show that the ESTARFM predictions have a sufficiently good accuracy, with a correlation coefficient between 0.878 < r < 0.919 (p < 0.001) and an average root mean square error 0.015 < RMSE < 0.024. The overall accuracy of forest disturbance detection with added synthetic images increased from 42.8% to 61.1 & 65.7% compared to the original data set. Forest recovery detection accuracy improved from 59.5% to 80.9%. The main source of error in the disturbance analysis occurs during the temporal interweaving between foliation and defoliation in spring. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. 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