Next Article in Journal
Development and Demonstration of a Wireless Ultraviolet Sensing Network for Dose Monitoring and Operator Safety in Room Disinfection Applications
Previous Article in Journal
PCNN Model Guided by Saliency Mechanism for Image Fusion in Transform Domain
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 23
Issue 5
10.3390/s23052492
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mapping Fire Severity in Southwest China Using the Combination of Sentinel 2 and GF Series Satellite Images

by
Xiyu Zhang
1,
Jianrong Fan
1,*,
Jun Zhou
1,
Linhua Gui
2 and
Yongqing Bi
3
1
Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China
2
Sichuan Forestry and Grassland Inventory and Planning Institute, Chengdu 610081, China
3
Sichuan Chuanjian Geotechnical Survey Design Institute Co., Ltd., Chengdu 610000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2023, 23(5), 2492; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052492
Submission received: 26 January 2023 / Revised: 11 February 2023 / Accepted: 21 February 2023 / Published: 23 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Remote Sensors)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fire severity mapping can capture heterogeneous fire severity patterns over large spatial extents. Although numerous remote sensing approaches have been established, regional-scale fire severity mapping at fine spatial scales (<5 m) from high-resolution satellite images is challenging. The fire severity of a vast forest fire that occurred in Southwest China was mapped at 2 m spatial resolution by random forest models using Sentinel 2 and GF series remote sensing images. This study demonstrated that using the combination of Sentinel 2 and GF series satellite images showed some improvement (from 85% to 91%) in global classification accuracy compared to using only Sentinel 2 images. The classification accuracy of unburnt, moderate, and high severity classes was significantly higher (>85%) than the accuracy of low severity classes in both cases. Adding high-resolution GF series images to the training dataset reduced the probability of low severity being under-predicted and improved the accuracy of the low severity class from 54.55% to 72.73%. RdNBR was the most important feature, and the red edge bands of Sentinel 2 images had relatively high importance. Additional studies are needed to explore the sensitivity of different spatial scales satellite images for mapping fire severity at fine spatial scales across various ecosystems.

1. Introduction

Wildfires are a problematic and recurrent issue in Southwest China, which has attracted considerable attention from the government and researchers [1]. Wildfires cause severe loss of life and property and seriously affect the stability of forest ecosystems [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Discrimination of fire severity is the foundation of fire behavior analysis, ecological risk assessment, and rehabilitation planning [10,11].
Previous work has shown that machine learning classifiers are well suited to regional-scale fire severity mapping with remotely sensed images such as Landsat images, Sentinel 2 images, and unmanned aerial vehicle images [11,12,13,14,15,16]. Among numerous remote sensing indices derived for fire severity mapping, NBR-based indexes incorporating shortwave infrared (SWIR) bands, such as NBR [17], dNBR [18], and RdNBR [19,20], have been shown to map the spatial variation in fire severity. A combination of multiple types of information can be used by machine learning methods to obtain more accurate results than grading a single remote sensing index. In addition to the NBR-based indices, other remote sensing indices related to vegetation and soil, such as NDVI-based indices and BSI-based indices, can also be used [11]. Furthermore, the fraction of vegetation cover and evapotranspiration information can also be used as inputs for machine learning models [21].
Fire severity mapping using high-resolution satellite imagery can capture heterogeneous fire severity patterns and characterize the fire-driving ecological processes changes at fine spatial scales over large spatial extents [13,22]. Although numerous studies have been applied to fire severity mapping at 10 m (Sentinel 2 images based) and 30 m (Landsat series images based) spatial resolutions, regional-scale fire severity has still been seldom mapped at fine spatial scales (<5 m) from high-resolution satellite images. This is because the commonly used high-resolution satellite images do not have the shortwave infrared (SWIR) bands and thus cannot calculate NBR-based indices. Furthermore, the authors of [11] demonstrated that high canopy cover and topographic complexity were associated with a higher rate of under-prediction, especially in lower severity classes. High-resolution satellite images can view more information about the burnt understory vegetation through forest gaps, potentially improving the accuracy of lower severity classes mapping. Therefore, exploring remote sensing approaches that can map fire severity at fine spatial scales in fire-prone ecosystems is significant and challenging.
The recent increase in the availability of high-resolution satellite imagery provides an opportunity to assess fire severity at fine spatial scales. In 2010, China launched a “high-resolution earth observation systems” program, which includes seven different types of high-resolution earth observation satellites [23]. The first satellite, GF-1, was successfully launched on 26 April 2013 and can provide multi-resolution (2 m, 8 m, and 16 m) data with a 4-day revisit cycle. The GF-6 satellite, successfully launched in 2018, has the exact same resolution and revisit cycle as the GF-1 satellite. A 2-day revisit cycle can be achieved through the operation in conjunction with the on-orbit GF-1 satellite [24]. The suitable spatial resolution and revisit cycle of GF series satellites provide feasibility for fire monitoring.
Some studies have already used GF images for fire monitoring, such as fire line extraction [25]. However, studies of fire severity mapping using GF images are still lacking due to the lack of SWIR bands for computing NBR-based indices. This problem may be solved by combining GF series satellite and Sentinel 2 satellite images. The Sentinel 2 is a constellation of two satellites, with the first one launched in June 2015 and the second one launched in March 2017. The multispectral instrument onboard the Sentinel 2 constellation captures images across 13 spectral bands at 10 m and 20 m resolution with a 5-day revisit cycle at mid-latitudes. Previous studies showed that Sentinel 2 generally performed as well as or better than Landsat for fire severity mapping [26,27]. Due to the finer spatial resolution and richer spectrum, Sentinel 2 imagery was selected instead of Landsat series images. Furthermore, Sentinel 2 imagery was selected because its red-edge bands exhibited a high correlation with fire severity [28].
This study aimed to use high-resolution GF series satellite and Sentinel 2 satellite images to map fire severity at 2 m spatial resolution. The panchromatic band at 2 m resolution and the visible and near infra-red (NIR) bands at 8 m resolution of GF series images was selected to cooperate with the Sentinel 2 images. We evaluate the influence of GF series images on fire severity mapping and analyze the fire severity spatial distribution of a fire-prone artificially planted forest ecosystem in a mountainous region of Southwest China.

2. Study Area

The Lushan Mountain region in Xichang City, Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture (Sichuan Province, Southwest China), was selected as the study area, as shown in Figure 1. On 30 March 2020, a vast forest fire occurred in the village of Jingjiu in Xichang City. The fire lasted for three days, causing 19 deaths and 3 injuries. The burned area exceeded 30 km2, completely covering the Lushan Mountain scenic area. The densely populated residential area of Xichang City is adjacent to the northern part of the study area. Xichang City has a subtropical monsoon climate, with rainy summers and dry winters. The study area is a typical artificially planted forest area in mountainous southwest China. The dominant tree species are fire-prone Pinus Yunnanensis and Eucalyptus, which were planted by aerial seeding from the 1950s to the 1960s. Pinus Yunnanensis is rich in flammable turpentine, and the understory herbs are abundant. Once a fire starts, a major forest fire can be formed. According to the available data, at least four large-scale fires have occurred in the artificially planted forest area of Xichang City since 2010, on 4 March 2010, 27 January 2012, 18 March 2014, and 30 March 2020.

3. Methodology

The methodology comprises four steps: data acquisition and pre-processing, machine learning modeling, accuracy assessment, and distribution analysis (Figure 2).

3.1. Data Acquisition and Pre-Processing

Multiple satellite images and ancillary data were used in the present work (Table 1). In this section, we first introduce the satellite images, followed by the additional data, including topographical data and vegetation data.

3.1.1. Satellite Images

This study selected GF series and Sentinel 2 satellite images as close as possible to the fire’s start date (30 March 2020) and end date (1 April 2020). GF-1 and GF-6 images were provided by the High-Resolution Earth Observation System Sichuan Data and Application Center (https://www.cresda.com/ accessed on 4 May 2020). The Spatial resolution of panchromatic bands of GF-1 and GF-6 is 2 m. Blue, green, red, and near-infrared (NIR) bands of GF-1 and GF-6 were pan-sharpened from 8 m to 2 m resolution by the Gram–Schmidt method [29] after atmospheric correction and ortho-rectification. The differences in corresponding bands between sensors of GF-1 and GF-6, as shown in Table 2, were eliminated based on their spectral response functions. Level 1C products of Sentinel 2 were downloaded from the Copernicus Hub (https://scihub.copernicus.eu/ accessed on 16 May 2020). Red-edge and shortwave infrared (SWIR) bands of Sentinel 2 images were resampled from 20 m to 10 m resolution using the nearest neighbor resampling algorithm after atmospheric correction and BRDF normalization [30,31]. Bandpass adjustment was performed to minimize the differences between the sensors of Sentinel 2A and Sentinel 2B, as shown in Table 3. The high-resolution GF image was used as the reference for executing the image registration process. This ensured accurate alignment of the sentinel images to a consistent standard.

3.1.2. Topographical Data and Vegetation Data

A digital elevation model (DEM) with a 5 m resolution was used in the ortho-rectification [32] of both GF series and Sentinel 2 images. The DEM was obtained through an aerial photogrammetry technique at a spatial resolution of 5 m using the linear interpolation algorithm. These topographical data are the most recent and highest-resolution terrain data available. Plot-based vegetation maps for 2019 and 2020 were produced by artificial interpretation of high-resolution images.

3.1.3. Training and Validation Dataset

The training and validation dataset was obtained through a field investigation from 28 July 2020 to 30 July 2020. The field survey recorded GPS coordinates, vegetation types, and forest canopy and understory coverage to classify the fire severity of the sample points on site using the standard presented in Table 4. A total of 500 samples were collected, mostly distributed in unburnt and high severity classes. The low and moderate severity classes were naturally rare. For each sample, corresponding pixel values were extracted for each band reflectance of images, spectral indexes, and additional data to create a training and validation dataset used as input into the RF models. A subset of 80% of the samples was extracted randomly to train the two models, and the remaining 20% was used to validate the two models. The validation samples were independent of the training samples to avoid optimistic bias [33]. The spatial distribution of training and validation samples is shown in Figure 1. The samples were randomly and almost evenly distributed in the study area. The minimum spatial distance between any two samples was greater than 30 m, ensuring a single Sentinel 2 pixel was not sampled twice.

3.2. Machine Learning Modeling

GF series and Sentinel 2 images were selected to map the fire severity of the study area at 2 m spatial resolution. In order to validate the effects of high-resolution images on the classification accuracy of fire severity, a comparative experiment using the random forest (RF) method [34] was carried out based on the Python sci-kit learn library (github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn accessed on 20 May 2020). One RF model (the S2-GF model) used GF series images, Sentinel 2 images, topographical data, and vegetation data as training and validation data. The other model (the S2 model) used Sentinel 2 images, topographical data, and vegetation data but did not use GF series images. The two models used the same samples to train and validate the classification models.
The features used in the two models to identify fire severity comprise reflectance, spectral indexes, and additional data, as shown in Table 5. The formula of spectral indexes of pre-fire and post-fire Sentinel 2 images, including NBR-based, NDVI-based, and BSI-based indexes, is shown in Table 6. The NDVI-based indices can reflect the vegetation change after the fire, and the BSI-based indices reflect the bare soil information after the fire. Due to the lack of SWIR bands, only NDVI-based spectral indexes were calculated using pre-fire and post-fire GF images. The spatial resolutions of the Sentinel 2 images, GF images, and DEM after pre-processing were 10 m, 2 m, and 5 m, respectively. And the vegetation type was vector data based on a forest compartments survey. In order to align the features with different spatial resolutions, all data are resampled to 1 m resolution using the nearest neighbor resampling algorithm.

3.3. Classification Accuracy Assessment

The confusion matrix and the Kappa statistic [37] were used to calculate the classification accuracy for each class and compare the performance between the two models. The feature importance of each variable on random forest classification models was ranked to assess feature importance on classification accuracy.

3.4. Fire Severity Classes Distribution Analysis

After mapping the fire severity of the study area, all pixels in the fire severity map predicted by the RF model with higher accuracy were used to analyze the relationship between fire severity classes and topography. The dominant tree species are Pinus Yunnanensis and Eucalyptus, which belong to the evergreen needle leaf forest and sclerophyllous evergreen broadleaf forest, respectively. The area of each fire severity class predicted by the RF model was counted by vegetation type.

4. Results

4.1. Model Results and Accuracy Comparison

The optimal parameters of the models were determined by a cross-validated grid search over a parameter grid, which exhaustively considered all parameter combinations for given values. For the estimator’s number and max depth, lists of (50, 100, 200, 300, 500, 800, and 1000) and (3, 5, 8, 10, 15, and 20) were set, respectively in this study. The parameters were optimized to be 100 for the estimator’s number and 15 for the max depth in both models. The fire severity maps predicted by the RF models are shown in Figure 3. There were no significant differences in the spatial pattern of fire severity between the results of the two models. However, the S2-GF model predicted more accurately in the transitional areas where the fire severity changes from low to high (Figure 3). To prove that the constructed sample patterns are efficient for the random forest classification, evaluation metrics such as precision, recall, F1 score, confusion matrix, and Kappa statistic were used (Table 7). The confusion matrixes showed that the RF model with the higher Kappa score and higher overall accuracy was given by the S2-GF model (Table 7). The overall accuracy of the S2-GF model was 91%, which was 6% higher than the S2 model. Moreover, the S2-GF model outperformed the S2 model in every class of fire severity, especially in the low severity class (Table 7). There were five samples under-predicted, 91 samples correctly predicted, and 4 points over-predicted in the S2-GF model. In comparison, 6 samples were under-predicted, 85 samples were correctly predicted, and 9 points were over-predicted in the S2 model. The proportion of validation data across fire severity classes in each prediction type is shown in Figure 4. Adding GF data to the training dataset reduced the probability of low fire severity being under-predicted as the unburnt class from 50% to 40%. The relative decrease in the feature importance for the two models (trained with and without GF data) ranked the features as shown in Figure 5. RdNBR was the most important feature in both models. Nine variables in the top ten variables in the two models were consistent, but their importance rankings were different. The post-fire NDVI of GF images was the only feature in the top ten associated with GF data.

4.2. Relationship between Fire Severity Classes and Topography

All pixels in the fire severity map predicted by the S2-GF model were used to analyze the relationship between fire severity classes and topography. The median altitude of each severity class increased with the severity level, as shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 indicated that fire severity presented different patterns in different ranges of aspect and slope. Due to the fire spreading from the southwest to the northeast of the study area, a part of the southern part of the study area was unburnt (Figure 3). The low and moderate severity part was mainly located on higher slopes in the eastern part of the study area, where it was close to the lake and relatively humid.

4.3. Relationship between Fire Severity Classes and Vegetation Type

The study area is a typical artificially planted forest ecosystem in Southwest China, as indicated by manual interpretation results of GF images with an accuracy of 98.68%. Forest covers 89.78% of the total land in the study area, while other land use types such as cultivated land, shrubland, grassland, artificial surfaces, and water bodies occupy 4.70%, 1.68%, 2.57%, 1.13%, and 0.14%, respectively. Figure 8 shows the distribution of land use in the study area. The dominant tree species are Pinus Yunnanensis and Eucalyptus, accounting for 60.90% and 15.94% of the total area of the study area, respectively. Pinus Yunnanensis is an evergreen needle-leaf forest, and Eucalyptus is a sclerophyllous evergreen broadleaf forest. Other tree species found in the study area, such as Cyclobalanopsis, aspen, and oak, primarily comprise evergreen broadleaf forests. The areas with higher altitudes are dominated by Pinus Yunnanensis, while Eucalyptus and the other vegetation were mainly distributed in the west of the study area with lower altitudes. Pinus Yunnanensis and Eucalyptus were more severely affected by the fire, with only 14.34% of Pinus Yunnanensis unburnt, compared to 30.06% of Eucalyptus and 49.17% of the remaining area (Table 8).

5. Discussion

5.1. Error Analysis

The results demonstrated that fire severity could be mapped with high accuracy (an overall accuracy of 85% by the S2 model and 91% by the S2-GF model) by random forest classification. The fire severity maps predicted by the two models had comparable accuracy to other studies [11,13,15,16]. No matter which model, the classification accuracy of unburnt, moderate, and high severity classes was significantly higher (>85%) than the accuracy of low severity classes (50–75%) (Table 7). This finding agrees with previous work [38] and may have been related to the limitations of the training and validation dataset. The accuracy pattern of the S2 model, as shown in Figure 4, was similar to the findings of previous work [11]. Of the under-predicted samples, the lower severity class represented the highest proportion. Of the over-predicted samples, the moderate severity class accounted for the highest proportion. Adding GF data to the training dataset reduced the probability of low fire severity being under-predicted as the unburnt class from 50% to 40%. It improved the accuracy of low severity classes from 54.55% to 72.73%. The post-fire vegetation situation was directly related to forest fire severity, because fire severity was defined as the loss of organic matter. Due to the higher resolution, there were fewer mixed pixels in the GF image than in the Sentinel 2 image, especially in the transitional areas where the fire severity changes from low to high (Figure 9). The post-fire NDVI of GF images provided high resolution vegetation information, which can significantly improve the accuracy of fire severity classes in areas with highly variable fire severity classes. Since the classification accuracy of the other three classes is relatively high, this improvement is more evident in the low severity class. In addition, the accuracy evaluation used a ground truth of the fire severity of 500 field-recorded samples. In regions with surveillance equipment, image annotation techniques can construct a large sample library from photos and videos to improve the accuracy of forest fire monitoring [39,40].

5.2. Feature Importance Comparison

The RdNBR of Sentinel 2 (S2) images was the most important feature in both models, which was consistent with other studies [11,14]. Although all of the reflectance bands were treated as features, only the post-fire NIR and red edge bands of S2 images were ranked in the top ten in both models. The closer the red edge band was to the NIR band, the higher its importance. The previous study demonstrated the superiority of red edge spectral indices over conventional spectral indices of S2 images [28]. Future improvements of features such as building NBR-based or NDVI-based indexes using red edge bands instead of NIR bands or SWIR bands may improve the models’ accuracy. In the S2-GF model, the importance of all of the reflectance bands of GF images failed to make it into the top ten. In spectral indexes features, RdNBR, post-fire NBR, dNDVI, dNBR, and post-fire NDVI of S2 images ranked the top ten in both models with different rankings. The importance of the post-fire NDVI of GF images was second only to the RdNBR of S2 images in the S2-GF model. In contrast, the post-fire BSI of S2 image features ranked in the top ten in the S2 model. According to previous studies, the NBR-based indices were the most popular in fire severity mapping [19,20,41]. The proportion change of vegetation and bare soil is directly related to fire severity. Therefore, NDVI- and BSI-based indices also had relatively high importance. The post-fire NDVI of GF images provided vegetation information with higher resolution, which was important for the model prediction in the transitional areas of fire severity. A high-resolution satellite in the future that has SWIR bands may further improve classification accuracy in areas with highly variable fire severity classes.

5.3. Fire Severity Distribution

Although the importance of topography and vegetation features did not rank in the top ten in both models (Figure 5), the spatial distribution of fire severity classes is related to elevation, slope, aspect, and vegetation type. As shown in Figure 6, the median altitude of each severity class increased with the severity level. This may relate to the spatial distribution of fire-prone Pinus yunnanensis and Eucalyptus in the study area. These fire-prone trees are mainly distributed in higher altitudes, while shrubland and cultivated land is distributed in low-altitude areas, such as valleys. The proportion of non-vegetative objects in the study area is small, accounting for just 1.27%. In areas where non-vegetative objects are more prevalent, it is recommended to include these objects, such as artificial surfaces, water bodies, and bare land, in the training samples for the fire severity mapping model. This will reduce the potential impact of these objects on the accuracy of the predicted fire severity maps. It is important to consider both vegetative and non-vegetative components in the study area and make necessary adjustments to the model to ensure optimal performance. Furthermore, the recovery speed of different vegetation types in the study area was different. According to the field survey in July 2020, the burnt grass had re-sprouted three months after the fire (Figure 1), while the burnt Pinus yunnanensis with high severity class was difficult to recover. In Southwest China, there is a large area dominated by artificially planted pine trees. The fire on March 30 2020 has attracted the attention of the academic community [25,42]. This study can provide an accurate fire severity map of this area at 2 m spatial resolution and an essential reference for fire severity mapping in similar regions.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study presents an approach to map fire severity in Southwest China at 2 m spatial resolution using random forest models and satellite images from Sentinel 2 and GF series. The results demonstrated that (1) the S2-GF model, which used the combination of Sentinel 2 and GF series satellite images, had an overall accuracy of 91%, while the S2 model, which used Sentinel 2 images without GF images, had an overall accuracy of 85%. The S2-GF model showed some improvement (6%) in global classification accuracy relative to the S2 model. The increase in accuracy is more pronounced for the low severity class (from 54.55% to 72.73%) than for other classes. (2) RdNBR was the most important feature, and the red edge bands of Sentinel 2 images had relatively high importance in both models. The importance of the post-fire NDVI of GF images is second in the S2-GF model. (3) The fire severity in the mountainous region showed a gradient distribution with the altitude change. The median altitude of each severity class increased with the severity level. (4) Fire-prone tree species were more severely affected than other vegetation.
The results of this study highlight the potential of high-resolution satellite images for mapping fire severity at fine spatial scales. This study presents a machine learning approach that combines the strengths of multiple satellite images, providing a reference for future research. Looking ahead, the future improvement of the satellite sensors, especially the high-resolution sensors with SWIR bands, can further improve fire severity mapping accuracy. Continuing research to assess the sensitivity of different spatial scales of satellite images for mapping fire severity across various ecosystems is essential.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.Z., J.F. and J.Z.; methodology, X.Z. and J.F.; resources, L.G.; writing—original draft, X.Z.; writing—review and editing, J.Z. and Y.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Sichuan Science and Technology Program (grant number 2021YJ0375), the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) “Light of West China” Program (grant number E0R2170), and the Youth Fund of Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant number SDS-QN-1904).

Data Availability Statement

The data used in the study are available from the authors and can be shared upon reasonable requests.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the High-Resolution Earth Observation System Sichuan Data and Application Center for supplying the GF series images. We thank Yong Xie and Chao Qin from the Sichuan Forestry and Grassland Inventory and Planning Institute for their field assistance. We thank Yong Nie from the Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, for providing valuable suggestions regarding this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wang, Y.; Hu, X.; Wu, L.; Ma, G.; Yang, Y.; Jing, T. Evolutionary History of Post-Fire Debris Flows in Ren’e Yong Valley in Sichuan Province of China. Landslides 2022, 19, 1479–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sazeides, C.I.; Christopoulou, A.; Fyllas, N.M. Coupling Photosynthetic Measurements with Biometric Data to Estimate Gross Primary Productivity (GPP) in Mediterranean Pine Forests of Different Post-Fire Age. Forests 2021, 12, 1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Depountis, N.; Michalopoulou, M.; Kavoura, K.; Nikolakopoulos, K.; Sabatakakis, N. Estimating Soil Erosion Rate Changes in Areas Affected by Wildfires. IJGI 2020, 9, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. van Wees, D.; van der Werf, G.R.; Randerson, J.T.; Andela, N.; Chen, Y.; Morton, D.C. The Role of Fire in Global Forest Loss Dynamics. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2021, 27, 2377–2391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Roces-Díaz, J.V.; Santín, C.; Martínez-Vilalta, J.; Doerr, S.H. A Global Synthesis of Fire Effects on Ecosystem Services of Forests and Woodlands. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2022, 20, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Geary, W.L.; Buchan, A.; Allen, T.; Attard, D.; Bruce, M.J.; Collins, L.; Ecker, T.E.; Fairman, T.A.; Hollings, T.; Loeffler, E.; et al. Responding to the Biodiversity Impacts of a Megafire: A Case Study from South-eastern Australia’s Black Summer. Divers. Distrib. 2022, 28, 463–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, J.; Pei, J.; Liu, J.; Wu, J.; Li, B.; Fang, C.; Nie, M. Spatiotemporal Variability of Fire Effects on Soil Carbon and Nitrogen: A Global Meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2021, 27, 4196–4206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sirin, A.; Maslov, A.; Makarov, D.; Gulbe, Y.; Joosten, H. Assessing Wood and Soil Carbon Losses from a Forest-Peat Fire in the Boreo-Nemoral Zone. Forests 2021, 12, 880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rostami, N.; Heydari, M.; Uddin, S.M.M.; Esteban Lucas-Borja, M.; Zema, D.A. Hydrological Response of Burned Soils in Croplands, and Pine and Oak Forests in Zagros Forest Ecosystem (Western Iran) under Rainfall Simulations at Micro-Plot Scale. Forests 2022, 13, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Keeley, J.E.; Keeley, J.E. Fire Intensity, Fire Severity and Burn Severity: A Brief Review and Suggested Usage. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2009, 18, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gibson, R.; Danaher, T.; Hehir, W.; Collins, L. A Remote Sensing Approach to Mapping Fire Severity in South-Eastern Australia Using Sentinel 2 and Random Forest. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 240, 111702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Meddens, A.J.H.; Kolden, C.A.; Lutz, J.A. Detecting Unburned Areas within Wildfire Perimeters Using Landsat and Ancillary Data across the Northwestern United States. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 186, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Meng, R.; Wu, J.; Schwager, K.L.; Zhao, F.; Dennison, P.E.; Cook, B.D.; Brewster, K.; Green, T.M.; Serbin, S.P. Using High Spatial Resolution Satellite Imagery to Map Forest Burn Severity across Spatial Scales in a Pine Barrens Ecosystem. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 191, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Collins, L.; Griffioen, P.; Newell, G.; Mellor, A. The Utility of Random Forests for Wildfire Severity Mapping. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 216, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pérez-Rodríguez, L.A.; Quintano, C.; Marcos, E.; Suarez-Seoane, S.; Calvo, L.; Fernández-Manso, A. Evaluation of Prescribed Fires from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) Imagery and Machine Learning Algorithms. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Montorio, R.; Pérez-Cabello, F.; Borini Alves, D.; García-Martín, A. Unitemporal Approach to Fire Severity Mapping Using Multispectral Synthetic Databases and Random Forests. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 249, 112025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. García-Llamas, P.; Suárez-Seoane, S.; Fernández-Guisuraga, J.M.; Fernández-García, V.; Fernández-Manso, A.; Quintano, C.; Taboada, A.; Marcos, E.; Calvo, L. Evaluation and Comparison of Landsat 8, Sentinel-2 and Deimos-1 Remote Sensing Indices for Assessing Burn Severity in Mediterranean Fire-Prone Ecosystems. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2019, 80, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Miller, J.D.; Thode, A.E. Quantifying Burn Severity in a Heterogeneous Landscape with a Relative Version of the Delta Normalized Burn Ratio (DNBR). Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 109, 66–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Miller, J.D.; Knapp, E.E.; Key, C.H.; Skinner, C.N.; Isbell, C.J.; Creasy, R.M.; Sherlock, J.W. Calibration and Validation of the Relative Differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (RdNBR) to Three Measures of Fire Severity in the Sierra Nevada and Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Soverel, N.O.; Perrakis, D.D.B.; Coops, N.C. Estimating Burn Severity from Landsat DNBR and RdNBR Indices across Western Canada. Remote Sens. Environ. 2010, 114, 1896–1909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Quintano, C.; Fernández-Manso, A.; Roberts, D.A. Enhanced Burn Severity Estimation Using Fine Resolution ET and MESMA Fraction Images with Machine Learning Algorithm. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 244, 111815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xie, X.; Li, A.; Tian, J.; Wu, C.; Jin, H. A Fine Spatial Resolution Estimation Scheme for Large-Scale Gross Primary Productivity (GPP) in Mountain Ecosystems by Integrating an Eco-Hydrological Model with the Combination of Linear and Non-Linear Downscaling Processes. J. Hydrol. 2023, 616, 128833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhou, Q.; Yu, Q.; Liu, J.; Wu, W.; Tang, H. Perspective of Chinese GF-1 High-Resolution Satellite Data in Agricultural Remote Sensing Monitoring. J. Integr. Agric. 2017, 16, 242–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Xia, T.; He, Z.; Cai, Z.; Wang, C.; Wang, W.; Wang, J.; Hu, Q.; Song, Q. Exploring the Potential of Chinese GF-6 Images for Crop Mapping in Regions with Complex Agricultural Landscapes. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2022, 107, 102702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tian, Y.; Wu, Z.; Li, M.; Wang, B.; Zhang, X. Forest Fire Spread Monitoring and Vegetation Dynamics Detection Based on Multi-Source Remote Sensing Images. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 4431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. White, L.A.; Gibson, R.K. Comparing Fire Extent and Severity Mapping between Sentinel 2 and Landsat 8 Satellite Sensors. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Howe, A.A.; Parks, S.A.; Harvey, B.J.; Saberi, S.J.; Lutz, J.A.; Yocom, L.L. Comparing Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8 for Burn Severity Mapping in Western North America. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 5249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fernández-Manso, A.; Fernández-Manso, O.; Quintano, C. SENTINEL-2A Red-Edge Spectral Indices Suitability for Discriminating Burn Severity. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2016, 50, 170–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dadrass Javan, F.; Samadzadegan, F.; Mehravar, S.; Toosi, A.; Khatami, R.; Stein, A. A Review of Image Fusion Techniques for Pan-Sharpening of High-Resolution Satellite Imagery. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2021, 171, 101–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Flood, N.; Danaher, T.; Gill, T.; Gillingham, S. An Operational Scheme for Deriving Standardised Surface Reflectance from Landsat TM/ETM+ and SPOT HRG Imagery for Eastern Australia. Remote Sens. 2013, 5, 83–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Roy, D.P.; Zhang, H.K.; Ju, J.; Gomez-Dans, J.L.; Lewis, P.E.; Schaaf, C.B.; Sun, Q.; Li, J.; Huang, H.; Kovalskyy, V. A General Method to Normalize Landsat Reflectance Data to Nadir BRDF Adjusted Reflectance. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 176, 255–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Vermote, E.; Justice, C.; Claverie, M.; Franch, B. Preliminary Analysis of the Performance of the Landsat 8/OLI Land Surface Reflectance Product. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 185, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Millard, K.; Richardson, M. On the Importance of Training Data Sample Selection in Random Forest Image Classification: A Case Study in Peatland Ecosystem Mapping. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 8489–8515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Tucker, C.J. Red and Photographic Infrared Linear Combinations for Monitoring Vegetation. Remote Sens. Environ. 1979, 8, 127–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Rikimaru, A.; Roy, P.; Miyatake, S. Tropical Forest Cover Density Mapping. Trop. Ecol. 2002, 43, 39–47. [Google Scholar]
  37. Allouche, O.; Tsoar, A.; Kadmon, R. Assessing the Accuracy of Species Distribution Models: Prevalence, Kappa and the True Skill Statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43, 1223–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Collins, L.; McCarthy, G.; Mellor, A.; Newell, G.; Smith, L. Training Data Requirements for Fire Severity Mapping Using Landsat Imagery and Random Forest. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 245, 111839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yang, X.; Chen, R.; Zhang, F.; Zhang, L.; Fan, X.; Ye, Q.; Fu, L. Pixel-Level Automatic Annotation for Forest Fire Image. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2021, 104, 104353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, H.; Li, Y.; Dang, L.M.; Lee, S.; Moon, H. Pixel-Level Tunnel Crack Segmentation Using a Weakly Supervised Annotation Approach. Comput. Ind. 2021, 133, 103545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hoy, E.E.; French, N.H.F.; Turetsky, M.R.; Trigg, S.N.; Kasischke, E.S.; Hoy, E.E.; French, N.H.F.; Turetsky, M.R.; Trigg, S.N.; Kasischke, E.S. Evaluating the Potential of Landsat TM/ETM+ Imagery for Assessing Fire Severity in Alaskan Black Spruce Forests. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 500–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cao, X.; Hu, X.; Han, M.; Jin, T.; Yang, X.; Yang, Y.; He, K.; Wang, Y.; Huang, J.; Xi, C.; et al. Characteristics and Predictive Models of Hillslope Erosion in Burned Areas in Xichang, China, on March 30, 2020. Catena 2022, 217, 106509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sensors 23 02492 g001 550
Figure 1. The location of the study area with field survey photos of different fire severity levels. The red dot indicates the location of the study area in China. The densely populated residential area of Xichang City, Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture (Sichuan Province, Southwest China), is adjacent to the northern part of the study area. Due to the government’s restrictions on entering the mountain after the fire, the field photos of different fire severity classes were taken in July. The burnt understory grass had re-sprouted three months after the fire in July. Burn marks can be seen on the ground and tree trunks can be seen in the low severity field photo. Most of the canopy (>50%) was scorched in the moderate severity field photo. Full canopy biomass was consumed in the high severity field photo.
Figure 1. The location of the study area with field survey photos of different fire severity levels. The red dot indicates the location of the study area in China. The densely populated residential area of Xichang City, Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture (Sichuan Province, Southwest China), is adjacent to the northern part of the study area. Due to the government’s restrictions on entering the mountain after the fire, the field photos of different fire severity classes were taken in July. The burnt understory grass had re-sprouted three months after the fire in July. Burn marks can be seen on the ground and tree trunks can be seen in the low severity field photo. Most of the canopy (>50%) was scorched in the moderate severity field photo. Full canopy biomass was consumed in the high severity field photo.
Sensors 23 02492 g001
Sensors 23 02492 g002 550
Figure 2. Flowchart of the methodology.
Figure 2. Flowchart of the methodology.
Sensors 23 02492 g002
Sensors 23 02492 g003 550
Figure 3. Fire severity maps. (A) Result of the S2-GF model and the GF-1 image on 18 April 2020; (B) result of the S2 model trained without GF data and the Sentinel 2 image on 4 April 2020. There were no significant differences in the spatial pattern of fire severity between the results of the two models. However, the S2-GF model trained with the combination of the Sentinel 2 data and GF data predicted more accurately, especially in the transitional areas where the fire severity changes from low to high (region a and region b in the figure).
Figure 3. Fire severity maps. (A) Result of the S2-GF model and the GF-1 image on 18 April 2020; (B) result of the S2 model trained without GF data and the Sentinel 2 image on 4 April 2020. There were no significant differences in the spatial pattern of fire severity between the results of the two models. However, the S2-GF model trained with the combination of the Sentinel 2 data and GF data predicted more accurately, especially in the transitional areas where the fire severity changes from low to high (region a and region b in the figure).
Sensors 23 02492 g003
Sensors 23 02492 g004 550
Figure 4. The proportion of validation data across fire severity classes in each prediction type of the S2-GF model (a) and the S2 model (b); under-predicted (the model predicted a lower severity class compared to the validation data), correctly predicted (the model predicted the same severity class compared to the validation data), and over-predicted (the model predicted a higher severity class compared to the validation data). Unburnt could not be under-predicted and extreme severity could not be over-predicted (i.e., NA).
Figure 4. The proportion of validation data across fire severity classes in each prediction type of the S2-GF model (a) and the S2 model (b); under-predicted (the model predicted a lower severity class compared to the validation data), correctly predicted (the model predicted the same severity class compared to the validation data), and over-predicted (the model predicted a higher severity class compared to the validation data). Unburnt could not be under-predicted and extreme severity could not be over-predicted (i.e., NA).
Sensors 23 02492 g004
Sensors 23 02492 g005 550
Figure 5. Ranked feature importance of each variable in the S2-GF model (a) and the S2 model (b), with 1 representing the most important feature. The figure only shows the top ten variables. Only GFpostNDVI, which means the NDVI of the post-fire GF image, was derived from GF images. The other features were obtained from Sentinel 2 images.
Figure 5. Ranked feature importance of each variable in the S2-GF model (a) and the S2 model (b), with 1 representing the most important feature. The figure only shows the top ten variables. Only GFpostNDVI, which means the NDVI of the post-fire GF image, was derived from GF images. The other features were obtained from Sentinel 2 images.
Sensors 23 02492 g005
Sensors 23 02492 g006 550
Figure 6. The distribution of elevation across each fire severity class. The violin density plots display the kernel density estimation of the underlying distribution, with the quartiles as horizontal lines (the median, the first, and the third quartile). Severity classes include unburnt, low severity (a burnt surface with unburnt canopy or partial canopy scorch), moderate severity (most or full canopy scorch), and high severity (full canopy consumption).
Figure 6. The distribution of elevation across each fire severity class. The violin density plots display the kernel density estimation of the underlying distribution, with the quartiles as horizontal lines (the median, the first, and the third quartile). Severity classes include unburnt, low severity (a burnt surface with unburnt canopy or partial canopy scorch), moderate severity (most or full canopy scorch), and high severity (full canopy consumption).
Sensors 23 02492 g006
Sensors 23 02492 g007 550
Figure 7. The distribution of aspect (denoted by angle) and slope (denoted by radius) across each fire severity class. The letters N, E, S, and W represent the directions of north, east, south, and west, respectively. Severity classes include unburnt, low severity (a burnt surface with unburnt canopy or partial canopy scorch), moderate severity (most or full canopy scorch), and high severity (full canopy consumption).
Figure 7. The distribution of aspect (denoted by angle) and slope (denoted by radius) across each fire severity class. The letters N, E, S, and W represent the directions of north, east, south, and west, respectively. Severity classes include unburnt, low severity (a burnt surface with unburnt canopy or partial canopy scorch), moderate severity (most or full canopy scorch), and high severity (full canopy consumption).
Sensors 23 02492 g007
Sensors 23 02492 g008 550
Figure 8. The distribution of land use types before the fire in the study area. The other tree species in the study area were mostly Cyclobalanopsis, aspen, and oak. The areas with higher altitudes are dominated by Pinus Yunnanensis, while the other vegetation was mainly distributed in the lower altitude areas in the west of the study area.
Figure 8. The distribution of land use types before the fire in the study area. The other tree species in the study area were mostly Cyclobalanopsis, aspen, and oak. The areas with higher altitudes are dominated by Pinus Yunnanensis, while the other vegetation was mainly distributed in the lower altitude areas in the west of the study area.
Sensors 23 02492 g008
Sensors 23 02492 g009 550
Figure 9. Comparison between the prediction results, post-NDVI features, and images of the two models. Due to the higher resolution, there were fewer mixed pixels in the GF image than in the Sentinel 2 image, especially in the transitional areas where the fire severity changes from low to high. The post-fire NDVI of GF images provided vegetation information with higher resolution, which can significantly improve the accuracy of fire severity classes in areas with highly variable fire severity classes.
Figure 9. Comparison between the prediction results, post-NDVI features, and images of the two models. Due to the higher resolution, there were fewer mixed pixels in the GF image than in the Sentinel 2 image, especially in the transitional areas where the fire severity changes from low to high. The post-fire NDVI of GF images provided vegetation information with higher resolution, which can significantly improve the accuracy of fire severity classes in areas with highly variable fire severity classes.
Sensors 23 02492 g009
Table
Table 1. List of data used in this study.
Table 1. List of data used in this study.
NamePre-Fire Data DatePost-Fire Data DateSpatial Resolution
Sentinel 2 images30 March 2020 (S2B)4 April 2020 (S2A)10 m/20 m
GF series images6 March 2020 (GF-6)18 April 2020 (GF-1)2 m/8 m
Digital elevation Model201320135 m
Plot-based vegetation maps201920202 m
Table
Table 2. Bands of GF-1 and GF-6.
Table 2. Bands of GF-1 and GF-6.
Spectral RegionGF-1GF-6
BandRange
(nm)		Spatial
Resolution (m)		BandRange
(nm)		Spatial
Resolution (m)
Pan 11450–90021450–9002
Blue2450–52082450–5208
Green3520–59083520–6008
Red4630–69084630–6908
NIR 25770–89085760–9008
1 Pan: panchromatic. 2 NIR: near-infrared.
Table
Table 3. Bands of Sentinel 2A and Sentinel 2B.
Table 3. Bands of Sentinel 2A and Sentinel 2B.
Spectral RegionBandSentinel 2ASentinel 2BSpatial Resolution (m)
Central Wavelength
(nm)		Bandwidth
(nm)		Central Wavelength
(nm)		Bandwidth
(nm)
Blue2492.466492.16610
Green3559.8365593610
Red4664.6316653110
Red Edge 15704.115703.81620
Red Edge 26740.515739.11520
Red Edge 37782.820779.72020
NIR 18832.810683310610
Red Edge 48A864.7218642220
SWIR 2 1111613.7911610.49420
SWIR 2122202.41752185.718520
1 NIR: near-infrared. 2 SWIR: shortwave infrared.
Table
Table 4. Classification of the fire severity, including the number of samples for each class.
Table 4. Classification of the fire severity, including the number of samples for each class.
Severity ClassDescription% Foliage Fire AffectedNumber of Samples
UnburntUnburnt surface with green canopy0% canopy and understory unburnt138
LowBurnt surface with unburnt canopy or partial canopy scorch>50% green canopy
<50% canopy scorched		63
ModerateMost or full canopy scorch>50% canopy scorched
<50% canopy biomass consumed		82
HighMost or full canopy consumption>50% canopy biomass consumed 217
Table
Table 5. Features used in the models to identify fire severity.
Table 5. Features used in the models to identify fire severity.
Feature TypeS2-GF Model Trained with GF DataS2 Model Trained without GF Data
ReflectanceThe reflectance of each band of pre-fire and post-fire Sentinel 2 imagesThe reflectance of each band of pre-fire and post-fire Sentinel 2 images
The reflectance of each band of pre-fire and post-fire GF images
Spectral indexesSpectral indexes of pre-fire and post-fire Sentinel 2 imagesSpectral indexes of pre-fire and post-fire Sentinel 2 images
Spectral indexes of pre-fire and post-fire GF images
Additional dataDEM, aspect, slope, and vegetation typeDEM, aspect, slope, and vegetation type
Table
Table 6. Spectral indexes calculated from Sentinel 2 images.
Table 6. Spectral indexes calculated from Sentinel 2 images.
Spectral IndexFormulaReferences
Pre-Fire Normalized Burn Ratio (preNBR) preNIR − preSWIR 2 preNIR + preSWIR 2 [18,19,20]
Post-Fire Normalized Burn Ratio (postNBR) postNIR − postSWIR 2 postNIR + postSWIR 2
The Differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR) preNBR − postNBR
Relative Differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (RdNBR) dNBR sqrt ( | preNBR | )
Pre-Fire Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (preNDVI) preNIR − preRed preNIR + preRed [35]
Post-Fire Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (postNDVI) postNIR − postRed postNIR + postRed
The Differenced Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (dNDVI) postNDVI − preNDVI
Pre-Fire Bare Soil Index (preBSI) ( preSWIR 1 + preRed ) − ( preNIR + preBlue ) ( preSWIR 1 + preRed ) + ( preNIR + preBlue ) [36]
Post-Fire Bare Soil Index (postBSI) ( postSWIR 1 + postRed ) − ( postNIR + postBlue ) ( postSWIR 1 + postRed ) + ( postNIR + postBlue )
The Differenced Bare Soil Index (dBSI) postBSI − preBSI
Table
Table 7. Confusion matrix and accuracy statistic of the S2-GF model trained with the combination of S2 and GF series data and the S2 model trained without GF data.
Table 7. Confusion matrix and accuracy statistic of the S2-GF model trained with the combination of S2 and GF series data and the S2 model trained without GF data.
Reference from Field InvestigationF1 ScoreKappa
UnburntLowModerateHighPrecision
Predicted by the S2-GF modelUnburnt2620092.8694.550.8697
Low182072.7372.73
Moderate0115188.2483.34
High0024295.4596.55
recall96.3072.7378.9597.6791.0091
Predicted by the S2 modelUnburnt2430088.8988.890.7808
Low362054.5554.55
Moderate0113186.6776.47
High0144289.3693.33
recall88.8954.5568.4297.6785.0085
Table
Table 8. Area statistics of fire severity class across each vegetation type.
Table 8. Area statistics of fire severity class across each vegetation type.
Vegetation TypeFire Severity
UnburntLowModerateHighTotal
The whole study areaArea(ha)1017.62430.63597.742039.014085.00
Percentage (%)24.9110.5414.6349.92100.00
Pinus YunnanensisArea(ha)356.67339.38497.351294.332487.73
Percentage (%)14.3413.6419.9952.03100.00
EucalyptusArea(ha)195.7450.1363.34341.96651.17
Percentage (%)30.067.709.7352.51100.00
Other areas of the study area Area(ha)465.2141.1237.05402.72946.10
Percentage (%)49.174.353.9142.57100.00
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, X.; Fan, J.; Zhou, J.; Gui, L.; Bi, Y. Mapping Fire Severity in Southwest China Using the Combination of Sentinel 2 and GF Series Satellite Images. Sensors 2023, 23, 2492. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052492

AMA Style

Zhang X, Fan J, Zhou J, Gui L, Bi Y. Mapping Fire Severity in Southwest China Using the Combination of Sentinel 2 and GF Series Satellite Images. Sensors. 2023; 23(5):2492. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052492

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Xiyu, Jianrong Fan, Jun Zhou, Linhua Gui, and Yongqing Bi. 2023. "Mapping Fire Severity in Southwest China Using the Combination of Sentinel 2 and GF Series Satellite Images" Sensors 23, no. 5: 2492. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052492

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop