Evaluating the fraction of vegetation cover based on NDVI spatial scale

correction model
X. ZHANG{, G. YAN*{, Q. LI{, Z.-L. LI{{, H. WAN{ and Z. GUO{
{State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Beijing Key Laboratory for Remote
Sensing of Environment and Digital Cities, School of Geography, Beijing Normal
University, Beijing 100875, Peoples Republic of China
{TRIO/LSIIT (UMR7005 CNRS), Parc dInnovation, BP10413, 67412 Illkirch, France
Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Peoples Republic
of China
(Received 27 January 2005; in final form 23 February 2006 )
Vegetation index (VI) is an important variable for retrieving the vegetation
biophysical parameters. With different kinds of remote sensing data sets, it is
easy to get the VI at different spatial and temporal resolutions. However, the
main concern is whether the relationship existing at some scale between the VI
and biophysical parameters is still applicable to other scales. This paper first
presents a method to correct the spatial scaling effect of NDVI by mathematic
analysis, and then analyses NDVI scale sensitivity with data from a spectral
database. The result shows that the NDVI obtained by reflectance up-scaling is
larger than the up-scaled NDVI from NDVI itself in most situations. The NDVI
scaling effect is more significant when water exists in a pixel, and increases with
the increase in the difference of the sum of visible reflectance and near-infrared
(NIR) reflectance between the vegetation and soil. Finally, a method is proposed
to estimate the fraction of vegetation cover (FVC) on the basis of the NDVI
spatial scaling correction model. The method is accurate enough to assess the
FVC taking into account the scaling effect.
1. Introduction
The fraction of vegetation cover (FVC) is an important variable for many land-
surface biophysical and biogeochemical models and serves as a useful measure of
land cover change. It can be obtained from ground measurements (Zhang et al.
2003) or remote sensing methods (Tian et al. 2004). Estimating FVC with remote
sensing technique has become the primary means due to rapid spatial and temporal
changes of vegetation cover.
Conventionally, FVC is defined as the vertical projection of the crown or shoot
area of vegetation to the ground surface expressed as fraction or percentage of the
reference area. However, taking into consideration supplementary requirements of
remote sensing techniques, FVC may be defined as the green vegetated area which is
directly detectable by the sensor from any view direction (Purevdor et al. 1998). In
this study, FVC is defined as the second meaning. FVC can be determined mainly by
*Corresponding author. Email: gjyan@bnu.edu.cn
International Journal of Remote Sensing
Vol. 27, No. 24, 20 December 2006, 53595372
International Journal of Remote Sensing
ISSN 0143-1161 print/ISSN 1366-5901 online # 2006 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/01431160600658107
the linear mixture method, which deconvolves proportional cover based on spectral
reflectance of endmembers or pure pixels (Jasinski 1996, Gilabert et al. 2000) or
NDVI method (Duncan et al. 1993, Zhang 1996). FVC is also attained with
physically based methods (Rosema et al. 1992), which are limited in use because of
the time-consuming need for many parameters to be input, especially for a global
image. In general, linear mixture modelling techniques have been mainly applied at
local or regional scales over limited areas (Zhu and Tateishi 2002). As a result, the
NDVI method has been widely used since the 1990s owing to its convenience and
global scale utility. Gutman and Ignatov (1997) proposed the relationship model
between NDVI and FVC (f) as:
f ~ NDVI{NDVI
s
= NDVI
v
{NDVI
s
, 1
where NDVI
v
, NDVI
s
are the NDVI of the dense vegetation canopy and bare soil,
respectively. However, is the mixed NDVI the sum of the NDVI of each component
in a pixel? Under what conditions can NDVI be expressed as a linear combination of
the NDVI of each component in a pixel?
The VI is an algebraic combination of remotely sensed spectral bands which can
provide useful information about vegetation (Liang 2004), such as FVC (Graetz
et al. 1988, Dymond et al. 1992, Purevdor et al. 1998) and LAI (North 2002). NDVI
is one of the most commonly used VIs because: (1) there exists a good relationship
between NDVI and kinds of biophysical parameters such as LAI, FAPAR and FVC
(Huete et al. 1992, 1997, Zhang 1996); (2) NDVI can eliminate or minimize the
influences of sun angle, view angle, atmospheric effects, etc., and the effect of error
of sensor calibration reduces from 1030% on single spectra to 06% on NDVI due
to normalization of NDVI (Zhao 2003); (3) NDVI is very sensitive to the presence of
vegetation as well as the state of vegetation.
Scale often refers to spatial and time interval in remote sensing (Zhou et al. 2001).
More and more satellite platforms have been launched with sensors at different
spatial resolutions ranging from less than 1 m to a few kilometers, and at different
spectral resolutions varying from single-spectral to multi-spectral, and even to
hyperspectral bands. Thus, it is difficult to select suitable sensed data for different
applications from the large variety of data types, and both the spatial and the
spectral scaling factors become more and more important while the remotely sensed
data is used to investigate some issues (Woodcock and Strahler 1987). Similarly,
because of the scaling effect, while VI can be obtained easily from remotely sensed
data, especially for large areas, it is not clear whether the VI obtained at one scale
can be used at other scales or whether the relationships existing between the VI and
biophysical parameters at one scale are applicable at other scales.
Scaling problems on the relationships between the VI and the biophysical
parameters have been studied for many years (Justice et al. 1991, Chen 1999). Three
methods have been proposed to solve these problems: the first is to downscale the
model at large scale with a generalized parameter set and then disaggregate the
results into the smaller scale using interpolating transfer functions, which are
statistical relationships between large-area and site-specific surface parameters
(Wilby and Wigley 1997); the second supposes that the parameters are invariant
from one scale to another, these parameters are used for the up-scaling or down-
scaling models (Buchter et al. 1994); the third is to transform the parameters
between the different scales by establishing the transformation function (Zhang et al.
2002).
5360 X. Zhang et al.
Hu and Islam (1997) quantitatively demonstrated the NDVI scaling effect with
mathematical calculations. This paper first presents an analytical NDVI spatial
scaling correction model based on the linear mixture model, and then gives a scale-
invariant method based on the NDVI scaling correction model to retrieve the FVC.
Finally, this scale-invariant method is validated with both the simulated data and
actual satellite data such as MODIS images, with resolutions of 250 m and 1 km,
respectively.
2. NDVI spatial scaling correction model and analysis
2.1 NDVI spatial scaling model
Hu and Islam (1997) discussed the NDVI scaling problem with the relative
difference of up-scaled NDVI calculated using two methods. The first is to calculate
the NDVI small scale, then upscale it to large scale, denoted NDVI
L
; the second is
to upscale the reflectance first, then calculate the NDVI with the up-scaled
reflectance at large scale, denoted NDVI
D
. By expanding the Taylor series to the
second order, Hu and Islam (1997) derived the relative difference of NDVI as [see
formula (14) in their paper]:
NDVI
L
{NDVI
D
NDVI
D
~
2r
2
r
2
zr
1

2
r
2
{r
1

1
m

m
k~1
r
k
1
{r
1
_ _
2
{
2r
1
r
2
zr
1

2
r
2
{r
1

1
m

m
k~1
r
k
2
{r
2
_ _
2
z
2
r
2
zr
1

2
1
m

m
k~1
r
k
1
{r
1
_ _
r
k
2
{r
2
_ _
,
2
where r
1
, r
2
are the visible and near-infrared (VNIR) reflectances of a mixed pixel,
respectively, r
k
1
, r
k
2
are the VNIR reflectances of pure pixel k (component, k),
respectively, m is the total number of pure pixels (component k in a mixed pixel),
where m52 if the pixel is composed of two components.
Assuming the pixel is a mixture of vegetation and bare soil with the area fraction f
for vegetation and (1f ) for bare soil, on the basis of the linear mixed principle, the
mixed pixel reflectance at some spectral regions can be considered to be
approximately the linear combination of the reflectance of all components. Then
the VNIR reflectance of the mixed pixel is written as follows:
r
1
~f r
v
1
z 1{f r
s
1
3
r
2
~f r
v
2
z 1{f r
s
2
, 4
where v stands for vegetation, and s for bare soil.
If Dr
2
and Dr
1
denote the VNIR reflectance difference between vegetation and
soil respectively,
Dr
1
~r
v
1
{r
s
1
5
Dr
2
~r
v
2
{r
s
2
: 6
Evaluating the fraction of vegetation cover 5361
Then according to the definition of NDVI, one can write
NDVI
s
~ r
s
2
{r
s
1
_ __
r
s
2
zr
s
1
_ _
7
NDVI
v
~ r
v
2
{r
v
1
_ __
r
v
2
zr
v
1
_ _
8
NDVI
D
~ r
2
{r
1
= r
2
zr
1
, 9
and following the works of Angora et al. (1992) and Gutman and Ignatov (1997),
the integrated value of NDVI (NDVI
L
) on the basis of the lumping approach can be
written as
NDVI
L
~ 1{f NDVI
s
zfNDVI
v
: 10
By simple mathematical manipulation of equations (3)(10), the relative difference
of up-scaled NDVI can be derived:
NDVI
L
{NDVI
D
NDVI
D
~
f 1{f Dr
2
zDr
1

r
2
{r
1
r
2
Dr
1
{r
1
Dr
2

r
v
2
zr
v
1
_ _
r
s
2
zr
s
1
_ _
~
f 1{f Dr
2
zDr
1

r
2
{r
1
NDVI
s
{NDVI
v
:
11
2.2 Analysis of model sensitivity
Generally, for a mixed pixel consisting of vegetation and bare soil, near-infrared
(NIR) reflectance r
2
is larger than the visible (VIS) reflectance r
1
, namely r
1
,r
2
. At
the same time, NDVI
s
is smaller than NDVI
v
. Although the NIR reflectance for
vegetation is larger than that for soil, and contrarily reflectance in VIS for
vegetation is less than that for soil, that is to say Dr
2
.0 and Dr
1
,0, generally,
Dr
2
+ Dr
1
.0, therefore, the right-hand side of formula (11) is negative, which means
that NDVI
L
,NDVI
D
in most conditions.
If water is used to substitute for soil in a mixed pixel, as discussed above, since
NDVI
w
for water is less than zero and the reflectance in the VIS and NIR for the
water surface is much lower than that for bare soil, the absolute value of (NDVI
w

NDVI
v
) and Dr
2
+ Dr
1
are both increased, but r
2
2r
1
is decreased for this case,
leading to the fact that the spatial scaling effect is more significant for a mixture of
vegetation and water than for a mixture of vegetation and soil. On the basis of the
above remarks, the spatial scaling effect of NDVI should be more evident if soil is
wetter. Let us assume that every symbol in equation (11) is for dry soil, and the
decrease in VNIR reflectance for wet soil is Dx
1
and Dx
2
corresponding to r
s
1
and r
s
2
,
respectively, then, for the same vegetation cover, the relative difference of up-scaled
NDVI can be expressed as:
NDVI
L
{NDVI
D
NDVI
D
~
f 1{f Dr
2
zDr
1
zf 1{f Dx
1
zDx
2

r
2
{r
1
z 1{f Dx
1
{Dx
2

r
s
2
{r
s
1
_ _
{ Dx
2
{Dx
1

r
s
2
zr
s
1
_ _
{ Dx
2
zDx
1

{NDVI
v
_ _
:
12
5362 X. Zhang et al.
Because the NIR reflectance for water surface is lower than its reflectance in the
VIS, in most conditions, Dx
2
.Dx
1
; the right-hand side of equation(12) is therefore
larger than that of equation (11). As a result, the scaling effect of wet soil is more
obvious than that of dry soil with the same vegetation cover.
Based on equations (3)(6), formula (11) can also be rewritten as
NDVI
L
{NDVI
D
NDVI
D
~
f 1{f Dr
2
zDr
1

f Dr
2
{Dr
1
zr
s
2
{r
s
1
NDVI
s
{NDVI
v
: 13
For a given soil and vegetation, the FVC (f) corresponding to the maximum of the
relative difference of up-scaled NDVI can be obtained by
L
NDVI
L
{NDVI
D
NDVI
D
Lf
> 0 14
leading to
f ~

r
s
2
{r
s
1
_ _
2
z r
s
2
{r
s
1
_ _
Dr
2
{Dr
1

_
{ r
s
2
{r
s
1
_ _
Dr
2
{Dr
1

: 15
In order to show the scaling effect of NDVI under different conditions, 12 typical
soil and vegetation samples (table 1) were selected from the spectral database
supported by national high-technology developing research projects (http://
spl.bnu.edu.cn) to make up a mixture of winter wheat and non-vegetated samples.
The relative differences of up-scaled NDVI calculated using formula (11) with
different FVC for all combinations are displayed in figure 1. At the same time, the
FVC (f ) corresponding to the maximum differences of up-scaled NDVI calculated
with formula (15) are shown in table 2.
As shown in figure 1, NDVI calculated using the up-scaled reflectance (NDVI
D
) is
generally larger than that obtained with up-scaled NDVI (NDVI
L
), and if the pixel
is mixed with vegetation and water, the spatial scaling effect of NDVI is more
obvious (maximum relative difference of up-scaled NDVI is more than 10) than that
for a mixture of vegetation and soil. As a result, the spatial scaling effect of NDVI is
more pronounced if the soil is wetter.
The spatial scaling effect of NDVI is more noticeable with the increase in the sum
of the reflectance difference in VIS and NIR between vegetation and soil. As seen in
Table 1. Component reflectance for typical soil and vegetation samples from the spectral
database.
a
Vegetation
components
VIS
reflectance,
696 nm
NIR
reflectance,
896 nm
Background
components
VIS
reflectance,
696 nm
NIR
reflectance,
896 nm
Winter wheat 0.03 0.44 Bare soil 1 0.2 0.27
Cotton 0.05 0.61 Bare soil 2 0.20 0.25
Rice 0.04 0.31 Water 0.08 0.03
Corn 0.06 0.3 Algallimestone 0.31 0.33
Orange 0.05 0.7 Joseite 0.13 0.12
Pine 0.05 0.6 Sandstone 0.165 0.17
a
The data were provided by China 863 project (2002AA130010).
Evaluating the fraction of vegetation cover 5363
figure 1 and table 2, NDVI shows the most obvious spatial scaling effect at FVC
ranging from 10 to 30% for our study cases. The scaling effect of NDVI decreases
when FVC is far from the value at which the relative difference of up-scaled NDVI
reaches its maximum.
Figure 1. Relative differences of up-scaled NDVI with the change of vegetation fraction
cover for different mixed components. NDVI
L
: up-scaled NDVI values using the NDVIs
calculated at small scale; NDVI
D
: calculated NDVI values using the up-scaled reflectances;
Dr
1
and Dr
2
denote the reflectance difference between vegetation and soil in red and near-
infrared bands, respectively. A, mixing of winter wheat and different soils; B, same as A but
for the mixing of winter wheat and water.
5364 X. Zhang et al.
3. Evaluating FVC based on NDVI scaling correction model
3.1 Scale-invariant model
It is shown through the sensitivity analysis of an NDVI scaling correction model
that the spatial scaling effect of NDVI is noticeable for some FVCs. Therefore,
FVCs retrieved from NDVI also show the spatial scaling effect. In order to reduce
this effect, in the following we propose a scale-invariant model to retrieve FVCs
based on an NDVI spatial scaling correction model.
Inserting formulae (3) and (4) into (9), the FVC (f ) can be derived from
f ~
r
s
2
{r
s
1
{NDVI
D
r
s
2
zr
s
1
_ _
NDVI
D
Dr
2
zDr
1
{ Dr
2
{Dr
1

: 16
From this equation, one can see that the FVC can be determined when the VIS
and NIR reflectances of both vegetation and soil are known. It is difficult to obtain
the pure vegetation and soil reflectances from coarse resolution image. However, if
there exists only one type of vegetation in the studied region, it is possible to get the
pure vegetation and soil reflectance by ground measurements or a priori knowledge,
or from remote sensing data at finer spatial scale. Therefore, the FVC can be
estimated using equation (16) with NDVI measured at coarse scale (NDVI
D
)
provided that the pure vegetation and soil reflectance can be known.
Rearranging equation(16), we get our scale invariant model for FVC:
f ~
NDVI
D
{NDVI
s
NDVI
v
{NDVI
s
z
r
v
2
zr
v
1
r
s
2
zr
s
1
{1
_ _
NDVI
v
{NDVI
D

: 17
From this model, one can see that equation (17) is identical to equation (1) if
r
v
2
zr
v
1
r
s
2
zr
s
1
{1
_ _
NDVI
v
{NDVI
D

in the denominator is zero or can be neglected with respect to the quantity NDVI
v

NDVI
s
. Since NDVI
v
NDVI
D
is generally greater than zero, equation (17) turns to
be equation (1) only if
r
v
2
zr
v
1
r
s
2
zr
s
1
~1
which means that if the sum of vegetation reflectance in VIS and NIR is nearly equal
to the sum of soil reflectance in VIS and NIR, formula (1) can be substituted for
formula (17), otherwise the difference between FVC derived from these two
formulae is large.
Table 2. Maximum difference of up-scaled NDVI and corresponding vegetation fraction
cover.
Components
Maximum relative difference
of up-scaled NDVI
Corresponding vegetation
fraction cover (%)
Winter wheat and bare soil 1 20.005 29
Winter wheat and bare soil 2 20.03 27
Winter wheat and algallimestone 20.22 18
Winter wheat and joseite 20.34 14
Winter wheat and water 210 10
Evaluating the fraction of vegetation cover 5365
3.2 Validation and sensitivity analysis
In the following, we will compare the vegetation fraction cover estimated using
equations (1), (3) and (17) with simulated and actual satellite data such as MODIS,
which has a spatial resolution of 250 m and 1 km.
3.2.1 Data. To simulate linear mixed pixels, we select six types of vegetation
canopy and six kinds of non-vegetated backgrounds listed in table 1, and then the
reflectance images in the VIS and NIR are simulated by mixing vegetation canopy
with non-vegetated backgrounds under different FVC ranging from 0 to 100% with
a step of 5%.
Two MODIS images with 250 m and 1 km spatial resolution were used to
demonstrate the superiority of equation(17) in estimating the vegetation fraction
cover. The images were taken over a region mainly covered by vegetation and water
on 19 April 2004. FVC calculated from both 250 m and 1 km images are compared.
3.2.2 Results. For the simulated image, we compared the FVC calculated using
our scale invariant model [formula (17), formulae (1) and (3)] with the known
component reflectance. The results are shown in figure 2. From this figure, we can
see that, if the component reflectances are known exactly, the FVC obtained with
formula (1) may produce very large errors depending on the different types of soil
Figure 2. Comparison of the actual FVC with that derived using different formulae with
known component reflectances.
5366 X. Zhang et al.
and vegetation in a mixed pixel. In contrast, the FVC can be exactly retrieved from
formulae (17) and (3), whatever the mixture type of soils and vegetation.
In general, the component reflectances assessed using the available field data or
derived from image itself are not accurate enough and will lead to errors in the
retrieved FVC. In order to show the retrieved errors of the FVC produced by the
errors of component reflectance, we calculated the errors of the FVC derived using
different models (formulae) for two mixing pixels. One is the mixing pixel of winter
wheat and water, which exhibits the maximum spatial scale difference of NDVI, as
shown in figure 1(b), and the other is the mixing pixel of winter wheat and bare soil,
which has the minimum spatial scale difference of NDVI, as seen in figure 1(a).
First, 10% Gaussian random errors are introduced in the estimation of vegetation
and non-vegetation reflectances. Then, we compare the errors between actual FVC
and the FVC estimated using formulae (17), (1) and (3). The mean value and
standard deviation of errors in the FVC are shown in figure 3. In figure 3, the
vertical lines centered on the average value denote the standard deviation from three
models. It is clear that mean errors and the standard deviations of the FVC derived
using formula (1) are the largest.
In contrast, the errors of FVC derived from formula (17) are the smallest when
winter wheat and water are mixed. Mean errors and the standard deviations in the
FVC derived using different formulae are all smaller when the spatial scale effect of
NDVI is not prominent.
Based on the fact that there are different kinds of objects in an image, we first
classified the MODIS 250 m reflectance image into three classes using the supervised
method. Then, we obtained the component spectrum of vegetation and non-
vegetation for each class by the maximum and minimum NDVIs in the MODIS
250 m reflectance image, and calculated FVC using formulae (1), (3), (4) and (17)
throughout the image. Finally, we estimated the true FVC at a scale of 1 km by
aggregating the FVC values obtained from MODIS 250 m reflectance image. The
scale effects of formulae (1), (3), (4) and (17) are compared based on the true FVC
and that obtained using MODIS 1 km reflectance image. The result is shown in
figure 4. The scale effect is obvious for formula (1). Formula (17) is robust to the
change of scale from 250 m to 1 km. Formula (1) is sensitive to scale when the FVC
is around 0.2.
Denoting the true FVC of pixel i as f
tru
i
, the estimated FVC as f
est
i
, for total n
pixels, the relative root mean square (RMS) is

n
i~1
f
est
i
{f
tru
i
_ _
_
f
tru
i
_ _
2
_
n

_
:
It is expected that the relative RMS for formula (1) is as high as 10%, while the
relative RMS for formula (17) is 5%, which is the lowest of all of these FVC
estimation formulae.
3.3 Discussion
From figures 2 and 4, we found that FVC derived from different models are quite
different for mixed pixels. For simulated image, our scale-invariant model [formula
(17)] can obtain actual fraction cover when no errors are introduced in the
component reflectance. The scale effect of formula (1) is significant, especially when
Evaluating the fraction of vegetation cover 5367
Figure 3. The mean value and standard deviation of errors in the FVC derived using
formulae (1), (3), (4) and (18) with the component reflectances added errors by 10% of
Gaussian random distribution. (a), mixing of winter wheat and water; (b), mixing of winter
wheat and bare soil, where symbol denotes the standard deviation of errors in the FVC
derived using formula (18), denotes the same but for formula (1) and denotes the
same but for formulae (3) and (4).
5368 X. Zhang et al.
the mixing pixel is composed of vegetation and water where the maximum relative
error can reach 400%.
Furthermore, as shown in figure 1, the spatial scaling effect of NDVI is more and
more noticeable when the non-vegetated components have lower NIR reflectance
compared with that of the red band. Water is the component that has the most
significant scaling effect. Consequently, formula (1) gives the maximum estimation
error of FVC when water is mixed in a pixel. So, if the scaling effect of NDVI is
obvious, calculating the FVC with our scale-invariant model is much better, because
large errors will be generated using formula (1). Of course, if vegetation is very dense
or very sparse, the scaling effect of NDVI is not significant, and then our model will
give a result similar to that calculated with formula (1).
From formula (17), it can be concluded that the error between actual FVC and
the FVC from formula (1) is zero if the sum of vegetations red and NIR reflectance
is equal to that of the soil, namely,
r
v
2
{r
s
2
_ _
z r
v
1
{r
s
1
_ _
~0 : 18
Inserting formulae (5) and (6) into (19), we can get
Dr
2
zDr
1
~0 : 19
Since the error between actual FVC and the FVC from formula (1) is mainly
caused by the scaling effect of NDVI, when the scaling effect of NDVI is negligible,
our scale-invariant model is the same as formula (1). As a result, our model is an
extension of Gutman and Ignatovs expression by considering the scaling effect.
If we can obtain an accurate reflectance of each component, the FVC estimated
using formula (17) and linear mixing method is accurate, as shown in figure 2, and
can be proved by mathematical manipulation. However, in fact, the reflectance of
the component assessed with the available field or derived from an image usually
shows some errors which influence the estimated FVC. As shown in figure 3, if the
Figure 4. Comparison between the FVC values obtained from 250 m and 1 km MODIS
reflectance images using formulae (1), (3) and (18), respectively.
Evaluating the fraction of vegetation cover 5369
estimated reflectance of the component has some errors, the estimated FVC also has
error, especially when the pixel of winter wheat is mixed with water. However, if the
spatial scale effect of NDVI is not obvious, i.e. the sum of vegetations red and NIR
reflectances is nearly equal to that of the background, the errors of the FVC
estimated using three formulae are all small. As a result, the errors of the FVC
derived from formula (17) are the smallest, whatever the mixing pixel is. Therefore,
formula (17) can overcome the spatial scale effect in most cases.
It is well known that the errors of the estimated component reflectances will
influence the results derived from spectral mixture analysis (SMA). As shown in
figure 3, when errors are added to the component reflectances, the FVC derived
from SMA shows large error. At the same time, the FVC retrieved from our model
is more resistant to errors due to Gaussian random distribution. Of course, it is very
difficult to find a pixel which is only a mixture of two classes, especially on a large
scale, but similar analysis can be done for a mixed pixel with more classes.
4. Conclusions
This paper presents the NDVI spatial scaling correction model by mathematical
formulation. Because the expression of NDVI is non-linear and the surface is
heterogeneous, NDVI shows more spatial scaling effect. If water is mixed into a
pixel, the scaling effect of NDVI is the most significant. It is expected that the spatial
scaling effect of NDVI is more obvious when a mixed pixel is made up of vegetation
and wet soil than vegetation and dry soil. It was also proved that, when the sum of
vegetations red and NIR reflectances nearly equals that of soil, the spatial scaling
effect of NDVI can be neglected. Finally, the NDVI calculated by up-scaled
reflectance (NDVI
D
) is more than that of up-scaled NDVI (NDVI
L
) because the
absolute value of the reflectance difference between vegetation and soil in the NIR
band is more than that in the red band under most circumstances.
To overcome the large error in the FVC estimation caused by the scaling effect,
we proposed a method to calculate FVC based on NDVI scaling correction model.
Our scale-invariant model takes into account the scaling effect, and is expected to
give the actual FVC of a linear mixed pixel as the model is a combination of the
NDVI method and the linear mixing method. That is to say, the model that we
propose keeps both the merit of NDVI method, which is simple and time-saving,
and scale-invariant advantage of the linear mixing method. At the same time, this
model is robust to the errors by Gaussian random distribution.
The actual mixed pixel may be more complex, as it contains more components
and may even exhibit non-linear mixing properties. At the same time, it is difficult to
find out single species at coarse scale. Further study is needed on how to accurately
attain the component reflectance at coarse scale. FVC anisotropy is caused by
reflectance and NDVI anisotropy, and the scale effect at different angles needs to be
studied further. However, we expect our model to show good results for most of the
coarse resolution images.
Acknowledgements
This work is funded partially by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(grant no. 40471095), Special Funds for Major State Basic Research Project (grant
no. G2000077900), and the Excellent Young Teachers Program of Ministry of
Education, China. The authors would like to acknowledge Professors Xiaowen Li
5370 X. Zhang et al.
and Jindi Wang for fruitful discussions. We would also like to thank reviewers and
the editor for valuable suggestions.
References
ANGORA, A., RANDRIANMANANTENA, H., PODAIRE, A. and FROUIN, R., 1992, Upscale
integration of normalized difference vegetation index: the problem of spatial
heterogeneity. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 30, pp. 326337.
BUCHTER, B., HINZ, C. and FUHLER, H., 1994, Sample size for the determination of coarse
fragment content in a stony soil. Geoderma, 63, pp. 265275.
CHEN, J.M., 1999, Spatial scaling of a remotely sensed surface parameter by contexture.
Remote Sensing of Environment, 69, pp. 3042.
DUNCAN, J.S., FRANKLIN, D.J. and HOPE, A., 1993, Assessing the relationship between
spectral vegetation indices and shrub cover in the Jornada Basin New Mexico.
International Journal of Remote Sensing, 14, pp. 33953416.
DYMOND, J.R., STEPHENS, P.R., NEWSOME, P.F. and WILDE, R.H., 1992, Percent vegetation
cover of a degrading rangeland from SPOT. International Journal of Remote Sensing,
13, pp. 19992007.
GILABERT, M.A., GARCIA-HARO, F.J. and MELIA, J., 2000, A mixture modeling approach to
estimate vegetation parameters for heterogeneous canopies in remote sensing. Remote
Sensing of Environment, 72, pp. 328345.
GRAETZ, R.D., PECH, R.R. and DAVIS, A.W., 1988, The assessment and monitoring of
sparsely vegetated rangelands using calibrated Landsat data. International Journal of
Remote Sensing, 9, pp. 12011222.
GUTMAN, G. and IGNATOV, A., 1997, The derivation of the green vegetation fraction from
NOAA/AVHRR Data for use in numerical weather prediction models. International
Journal of Remote Sensing, 19, pp. 15331543.
HU, Z. and ISLAM, S., 1997, A framework for analyzing and designing scale invariant remote
sensing algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 35, pp. 747757.
HUETE, A.R., HUA, G., QI, J., CHEHBOUNI, A. and LEEUWEN, W.J.D., 1992, Noarmalization
of multidirectional red and NIR reflectance with the SAVI. Remote Sensing of
Environment, 41, pp. 143154.
HUETE, A.R., LIU, H.Q., BATCHILY, K. and VAN LEEUWEN, W., 1997, A comparison of
vegetation indices over a global set of TM Images for EOS-MODIS. Remote Sensing
of Environment, 59, pp. 440451.
JASINSKI, M.F., 1996, Estimation of subpixel vegetation density of natural regions using
satellite multispectral imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
34, pp. 804813.
JUSTICE, C.O., TOWNSHEND, J.R.G. and KALB, V., 1991, Representation of vegetation by
continental data set derived from NOAA-AVHRR data. International Journal of
Remote Sensing, 12, pp. 9991021.
LIANG, S.L., 2004, Quantitative remote sensing of land surfaces, pp. 200 (New York: John
Wiley & Sons).
NORTH, P.R.J., 2002, Estimation of fAPAR, LAI, and vegetation fractional cover from
ATSR-2 imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment, 80, pp. 114121.
PUREVDOR, T., TATEISHI, R., ISHIYAMA, T. and HONDA, Y., 1998, Relationships between
percent vegetation cover and vegetation indices. International Journal of Remote
Sensing, 18, pp. 35193535.
ROSEMA, A., VERHOEF, W., NOORBERGEN, H. and BORGESIUS, J.J., 1992, A new forest light
interaction model in support of forest monitoring. Remote Sensing of Environment, 42,
pp. 2441.
TIAN, J., YAN, Y. and CHEN, S.B., 2004, The advances in the application of the remote sensing
technique to the estimation of vegetation fractional cover. Remote Sensing for Land
and Resources, 59, pp. 15.
Evaluating the fraction of vegetation cover 5371
WILBY, R.L. and WIGLEY, T.M.L., 1997, Down-scalling general circulation model output: a
review of methods and limitations. Progress in Physical Geography, 21, pp. 530548.
WOODCOCK, C.E. and STRAHLER, A.H., 1987, The factor of scale in remote sensing. Remote
Sensing of Environment, 21, pp. 311332.
ZHANG, R.H., 1996, Remote Sensing Experiment Model and Ground Basic (Beijing: Science
Press).
ZHANG, X., DRAKE, N. and WAINWRIGHT, J., 2002, Scaling land-surface parameters for
global scale soil-erosion estimation. Water Resources Research, 38, pp. 11801189.
ZHANG, Y., LI, X.B. and CHEN, Y.H., 2003, Summarize on multi-scale remote sensing of grass
vegetation cover and method of ground measurement. Process in Earth Science, 18,
pp. 8593.
ZHAO, Y., 2003, Remote Sensing Application: Analysis and Method, pp. 374 (Beijing: Science
Press).
ZHOU, C.H., LUO, J.C. and YANG, X.M., 2001, Geographic Understanding and Analysis on
Remote Sensing Image, 2nd edn (Beijing: Science Press).
ZHU, L. and TATEISHI, R., 2002, Linear mixture modeling for quantifying vegetation cover
using time series NDVI data. Available at: www.gisdevelopment.net/aars/acrs/2002/
luc/luc006pf.htm
5372 Evaluating the fraction of vegetation cover