2016
DOI: 10.3390/rs8050369
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of Radiometric and Atmospheric Correction Algorithms for Aboveground Forest Biomass Estimation Using Landsat 5 TM Data

Abstract: Solar radiation is affected by absorption and emission phenomena during its downward trajectory from the Sun to the Earth's surface and during the upward trajectory detected by satellite sensors. This leads to distortion of the ground radiometric properties (reflectance) recorded by satellite images, used in this study to estimate aboveground forest biomass (AGB). Atmospherically-corrected remote sensing data can be used to estimate AGB on a global scale and with moderate effort. The objective of this study wa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
33
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
2
33
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Nazer et al [45] compared five atmospheric correction algorithms, 6S, FLAASH, ATCOR, DOS, and ELM, over sand, turf, grass, and water surfaces. López-Serrano et al [46] evaluated the performance of the COST, ATCOR2, FLAASH, 6S, and TOA algorithms for the estimation of forest above-ground biomass. Martins et al [47] compared the 6S, ACOLITE, and Sen2Cor methods applied to the new platform Sentinel 2-MSI.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nazer et al [45] compared five atmospheric correction algorithms, 6S, FLAASH, ATCOR, DOS, and ELM, over sand, turf, grass, and water surfaces. López-Serrano et al [46] evaluated the performance of the COST, ATCOR2, FLAASH, 6S, and TOA algorithms for the estimation of forest above-ground biomass. Martins et al [47] compared the 6S, ACOLITE, and Sen2Cor methods applied to the new platform Sentinel 2-MSI.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Remote sensing data were affected by their own spectral resolution, resulting in differences in the extraction accuracy of the band spectrum, vegetation index, texture information compared with high-resolution images [37,38,42,81]. In addition, due to the large span of date and time acquisition of the eight scenes in the same period, although atmospheric correction was performed, radiation differences could not be completely eliminated, resulting in errors in bamboo forest information extraction [82]. This is what we might improve in the future study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies have evaluated the various atmospheric correction methods over different types of land covers, atmospheric conditions, and geographical locations [12,[24][25][26][27]. For example , Nazeer et al (2014) [12] validated the SR from both image-based (DOS and ELM) and physical methods (ATCOR, FLAASH, and 6S) over sand, artificial turf, grass, and water surfaces using in situ measured SR, and found the 6S to be robust and more accurate for SR estimation compared to the other methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Nguyen et al (2015) [24] tested the adequacy of the DOS, FLAASH, and 6S for above-ground biomass (AGB) estimations of the Gongju and Sejong regions of South Korea and found that 6S outperforms the other methods. López-Serrano et al (2016) [25] compared the ATCOR, COST (cosine of the Sun zenith angle), FLAASH, and 6S for estimating AGB in the temperate forest area of northeast Durango, Mexico, and concluded that the 6S method is more efficient and reliable than other methods. These validation exercises suggested that (i) the physical methods performed much better than the image-based methods, and (ii) the 6S is the most reliable physical method.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%