Next Article in Journal
Comparative Global Assessment and Optimization of LandTrendr, CCDC, and BFAST Algorithms for Enhanced Urban Land Cover Change Detection Using Landsat Time Series
Previous Article in Journal
Geological Mapping and Rover Mobility Planning Integration: A Case Study for Zhurong Rover’s Landing Area
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

The Difference in MODIS Aerosol Retrieval Accuracy over Chinese Forested Regions

1
State Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Environment and Extreme Meteorology, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3
School of Geoscience and Technology, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(14), 2401; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17142401
Submission received: 24 April 2025 / Revised: 26 June 2025 / Accepted: 8 July 2025 / Published: 11 July 2025

Abstract

The updated MODIS Collection 6.1 (C6.1) Dark Target (DT) aerosol optical depth (AOD) is extensively utilized in aerosol-climate studies in China. Nevertheless, the long-term accuracy of this data remains under-evaluated, especially for the forested areas. This study was undertaken to substantiate the accuracy of MODIS Terra (MOD04) and Aqua (MYD04) at 3 km resolution AOD retrievals at six forested sites in China from 2004 to 2022. The results revealed that MODIS C6.1 DT MOD04 and MYD04 datasets display good correlation (R = 0.75), low RMSE (0.20, 0.18), but significant underestimation, with only 53.57% (Terra) and 52.20% (Aqua) of retrievals within expected error (EE). Both the Terra and Aqua struggled in complex terrain (Gongga Mt.) and high aerosol loads (AOD > 1). In northern sites, MOD04 outperformed MYD04 with better correlation and a relatively high number of retrievals percentage within EE. In contrast, MYD04 outperformed MOD04 in central region with better R (0.69 vs. 0.62), and high percentage within EE (68.70% vs. 63.62%). Since both products perform well in the central region, MODIS C6.1 DT products are recommended for this region. In southern sites, MOD04 product performs relatively better than MYD04 with a marginally higher percentage within EE. However, MYD04 shows better correlation, although a higher number of retrievals fall below EE compared to MOD04. Seasonal biases, driven by snow and dust, were pronounced at northern sites during winter and spring. Southern sites faced issues during biomass burning seasons and complex terrain further degraded accuracy. MOD04 demonstrated a marginally superior performance compared to MYD04, yet both failed to achieve the global validation benchmark (66% within). The proposed results highlight critical limitations of current aerosol retrieval algorithms in forest and mountainous landscapes, necessitating methodological refinements to improve satellite-based derived AOD accuracy in ecological sensitive areas.
Keywords: MODIS; CARE-CHINA; Sunphotometer; forest; validation MODIS; CARE-CHINA; Sunphotometer; forest; validation

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ahmed, M.; Ma, Y.; Kong, L.; Tan, Y.; Xin, J. The Difference in MODIS Aerosol Retrieval Accuracy over Chinese Forested Regions. Remote Sens. 2025, 17, 2401. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17142401

AMA Style

Ahmed M, Ma Y, Kong L, Tan Y, Xin J. The Difference in MODIS Aerosol Retrieval Accuracy over Chinese Forested Regions. Remote Sensing. 2025; 17(14):2401. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17142401

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ahmed, Masroor, Yongjing Ma, Lingbin Kong, Yulong Tan, and Jinyuan Xin. 2025. "The Difference in MODIS Aerosol Retrieval Accuracy over Chinese Forested Regions" Remote Sensing 17, no. 14: 2401. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17142401

APA Style

Ahmed, M., Ma, Y., Kong, L., Tan, Y., & Xin, J. (2025). The Difference in MODIS Aerosol Retrieval Accuracy over Chinese Forested Regions. Remote Sensing, 17(14), 2401. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17142401

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