Next Article in Journal
Joint Multi-Image Saliency Analysis for Region of Interest Detection in Optical Multispectral Remote Sensing Images
Next Article in Special Issue
Abiotic Controls on Macroscale Variations of Humid Tropical Forest Height
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Per-Pixel Variability on Uncertainties in Bathymetric Retrievals from High-Resolution Satellite Images
Previous 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
Article Menu
Issue 6 (June) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Remote Sens. 2016, 8(6), 460;

Evaluation of MODIS LAI/FPAR Product Collection 6. Part 2: Validation and Intercomparison

School of Geography, State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
Beijing Key Lab of Spatial Information Integration and Its Applications, Institute of RS and GIS, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Alfredo R. Huete and Prasad S. Thenkabail
Received: 4 April 2016 / Revised: 19 May 2016 / Accepted: 25 May 2016 / Published: 30 May 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing of Vegetation Structure and Dynamics)
Full-Text   |   PDF [13833 KB, uploaded 3 June 2016]   |  


The aim of this paper is to assess the latest version of the MODIS LAI/FPAR product (MOD15A2H), namely Collection 6 (C6). We comprehensively evaluate this product through three approaches: validation with field measurements, intercomparison with other LAI/FPAR products and comparison with climate variables. Comparisons between ground measurements and C6, as well as C5 LAI/FPAR indicate: (1) MODIS LAI is closer to true LAI than effective LAI; (2) the C6 product is considerably better than C5 with RMSE decreasing from 0.80 down to 0.66; (3) both C5 and C6 products overestimate FPAR over sparsely-vegetated areas. Intercomparisons with three existing global LAI/FPAR products (GLASS, CYCLOPES and GEOV1) are carried out at site, continental and global scales. MODIS and GLASS (CYCLOPES and GEOV1) agree better with each other. This is expected because the surface reflectances, from which these products were derived, were obtained from the same instrument. Considering all biome types, the RMSE of LAI (FPAR) derived from any two products ranges between 0.36 (0.05) and 0.56 (0.09). Temporal comparisons over seven sites for the 2001–2004 period indicate that all products properly capture the seasonality in different biomes, except evergreen broadleaf forests, where infrequent observations due to cloud contamination induce unrealistic variations. Thirteen years of C6 LAI, temperature and precipitation time series data are used to assess the degree of correspondence between their variations. The statistically-significant associations between C6 LAI and climate variables indicate that C6 LAI has the potential to provide reliable biophysical information about the land surface when diagnosing climate-driven vegetation responses. View Full-Text
Keywords: Leaf Area Index (LAI); Fraction of Photosynthetically-Active Radiation (FPAR); MODIS; Collection 6; evaluation; validation; intercomparison Leaf Area Index (LAI); Fraction of Photosynthetically-Active Radiation (FPAR); MODIS; Collection 6; evaluation; validation; intercomparison

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).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Yan, K.; Park, T.; Yan, G.; Liu, Z.; Yang, B.; Chen, C.; Nemani, R.R.; Knyazikhin, Y.; Myneni, R.B. Evaluation of MODIS LAI/FPAR Product Collection 6. Part 2: Validation and Intercomparison. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 460.

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



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