Next Article in Journal
Geostatistical Analysis of CH4 Columns over Monsoon Asia Using Five Years of GOSAT Observations
Next Article in Special Issue
Discriminating between Native Norway Spruce and Invasive Sitka Spruce—A Comparison of Multitemporal Landsat 8 Imagery, Aerial Images and Airborne Laser Scanner Data
Previous Article in Journal
Remote Sensing-Based Exploration of Structurally-Related Mineralizations around Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Amazon Forests’ Response to Droughts: A Perspective from the MAIAC Product
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Remote Sens. 2016, 8(5), 359; doi:10.3390/rs8050359

Evaluation of MODIS LAI/FPAR Product Collection 6. Part 1: Consistency and Improvements

1
School of Geography, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
2
Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
3
Beijing Key Lab of Spatial Information Integration & Its Applications, Institute of RS & GIS, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
4
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Sangram Ganguly, Compton Tucker, Clement Atzberger and Prasad S. Thenkabail
Received: 7 March 2016 / Revised: 13 April 2016 / Accepted: 20 April 2016 / Published: 26 April 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing of Vegetation Structure and Dynamics)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [4901 KB, uploaded 26 April 2016]   |  

Abstract

As the latest version of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Leaf Area Index (LAI) and Fraction of Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FPAR) products, Collection 6 (C6) has been distributed since August 2015. This collection is evaluated in this two-part series with the goal of assessing product accuracy, uncertainty and consistency with the previous version. In this first paper, we compare C6 (MOD15A2H) with Collection 5 (C5) to check for consistency and discuss the scale effects associated with changing spatial resolution between the two collections and benefits from improvements to algorithm inputs. Compared with C5, C6 benefits from two improved inputs: (1) L2G–lite surface reflectance at 500 m resolution in place of reflectance at 1 km resolution; and (2) new multi-year land-cover product at 500 m resolution in place of the 1 km static land-cover product. Global and seasonal comparison between C5 and C6 indicates good continuity and consistency for all biome types. Moreover, inter-annual LAI anomalies at the regional scale from C5 and C6 agree well. The proportion of main radiative transfer algorithm retrievals in C6 increased slightly in most biome types, notably including a 17% improvement in evergreen broadleaf forests. With same biome input, the mean RMSE of LAI and FPAR between C5 and C6 at global scale are 0.29 and 0.091, respectively, but biome type disagreement worsens the consistency (LAI: 0.39, FPAR: 0.102). By quantifying the impact of input changes, we find that the improvements of both land-cover and reflectance products improve LAI/FPAR products. Moreover, we find that spatial scale effects due to a resolution change from 1 km to 500 m do not cause any significant differences. View Full-Text
Keywords: Leaf Area Index (LAI); Fraction of Photo-synthetically Active Radiation (FPAR); MODIS; Collection 6; evaluation; consistency Leaf Area Index (LAI); Fraction of Photo-synthetically Active Radiation (FPAR); MODIS; Collection 6; evaluation; consistency
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Yan, K.; Park, T.; Yan, G.; Chen, C.; Yang, B.; Liu, Z.; Nemani, R.R.; Knyazikhin, Y.; Myneni, R.B. Evaluation of MODIS LAI/FPAR Product Collection 6. Part 1: Consistency and Improvements. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 359.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Remote Sens. EISSN 2072-4292 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top