2005
DOI: 10.1080/01431160500080626
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accuracy assessment of the vegetation continuous field tree cover product using 3954 ground plots in the south‐western USA

Abstract: An accuracy assessment of the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) vegetation continuous field (VCF) tree cover product using two independent ground-based tree cover databases was conducted. Ground data included 1176 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plots for Arizona and 2778 Southwest Regional GAP (SWReGAP) plots for Utah and western Colorado. Overall rms. error was 24% for SWReGAP and 31% for FIA data. VCF bias was positive at low observed tree cover but systematically increased thereafte… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
37
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
6
37
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Hansen et al (2002) provided the first de facto Á although not independent Á estimates of MODISC VCF accuracy by comparing an experimental version of the dataset to the Landsat data used to train the generating model. Later, White et al (2005) compared the MODIS VCF Version 1 to independently gathered field data across the arid southwestern United States, and Montesano et al (2009) validated the Version 4 MODIS VCF against independent reference data derived from photo-interpreted high-resolution images across the boreal-taiga ecotone. Also, Heiskanen (2008) and Song et al (2011) compared the MODIS VCF to other remotely sensed global datasets.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hansen et al (2002) provided the first de facto Á although not independent Á estimates of MODISC VCF accuracy by comparing an experimental version of the dataset to the Landsat data used to train the generating model. Later, White et al (2005) compared the MODIS VCF Version 1 to independently gathered field data across the arid southwestern United States, and Montesano et al (2009) validated the Version 4 MODIS VCF against independent reference data derived from photo-interpreted high-resolution images across the boreal-taiga ecotone. Also, Heiskanen (2008) and Song et al (2011) compared the MODIS VCF to other remotely sensed global datasets.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, many studies have cross-compared the MODIS VCF to other remotely-sensed global land cover datasets [53][54][55][56]. These independent assessments found that saturation of the optical signal, phenological noise and confusion with dense herbaceous vegetation led to errors in the earlier MODIS VCF, varying between 10%-31% in terms of root-mean-square error (RMSE) and 7%-21% in the latest version [48,51,52]. The latest Collection 5 MODIS VCF product is used in this study.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Collection 1 global VCF product was validated against independent field data across the arid Southwestern United States [51], and later, the Collection 4 product was evaluated using reference data derived from high-resolution images across the boreal-taiga ecotone [52]. Recently, the error of the Collection 5 VCF was estimated against measurements of tree cover from small-footprint light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data in four sites across three different forest biomes [48].…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rigorous validation is crucial in producing useful land cover products [11,[51][52][53][54]. However, the challenges, including a very large commitment of resources and time, have generally discouraged thorough validation in large scale, high resolution maps [55].…”
Section: Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%