Full text: Technical Commission VIII (B8)

    
   
   
   
   
   
    
   
   
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
    
    
    
    
    
     
  
   
   
    
    
    
  
    
     
    
   
    
Interval 
8-day 
irregular 
8-day 
8-da 
     
  
    
- data used. 
of STARFM 
sentation for 
interpolated 
als. 
acted for the 
centage cover 
provides a 
tation cover, 
s (Armston, et 
' cover in the 
n a per pixel 
r the common 
of analysis is 
1 significance 
regressed are 
ordinary least 
lated residual 
he assumption 
error in the 
coefficients is 
ted lag model 
bstituted by a 
ation. To this 
ponents were 
nomalies were 
distributed lag 
anomalies as 
r estimation: 
  
  
  
NDI =a+bRE+J,RE +... +b RF_„+& 
where t is the time, a is the, b; are the regression coefficients at 
lag i. 
In a second step an autoregressive moving average (ARMA) 
model is fitted to the error term & to assess the temporal 
autocorrelation structure of the series. The next step is to filter 
the original time-series (NDVI and rainfall anomalies) using the 
identified ARMA-model. The last step is to repeat the OLS- 
regression of the anomalies. This results in a distributed lag 
model in which the residuals are "white noise" and to an 
unbiased assessment of the significance of the regression 
coefficients (Udelhoven et al., 2009). 
A Durbin-Watson test was applied to detect the presence of a 
remaining autocorrelation in the time series. 
3. RESULTS 
A time series plot of rainfall and NDVI in a forested area (open 
woodland) displays the seasonality within the NDVI data. 
  
  
  
  
  
Figure 3: Time series of rainfall (blue line) and NDVI (black 
line) for a location in an open woodland. 
3.1 Simple lagged correlation 
A smoothing filer with a window length of 5 was applied to 
both time series. The maximum correlation at the respective lag 
Was reported on a per pixel basis (Figure 4). 
  
Correlation Lag “(orange=0, yellow=1, 
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XXXIX-B8, 2012 
XXII ISPRS Congress, 25 August — 01 September 2012, Melbourne, Australia 
  
red=2, white =4, black=neg.) 
Figure 4: Lagged correlation between rainfall and NDVI. 
The response times lag times appear to have very little spatial 
pattern with generally quick vegetation response with a lag of 0. 
In the forested areas appear a lag of 1 and a lag of 2 along the 
riparian areas. 
3.2 Distributed lag model 
Raster layers of the 5% significance level demonstrate the 
difference in the response times in the different land types. In 
this 14 day aggregation it appears that no significant response 
of the NDVI exists after a lag period of 4 (56 days). In the 
grasslands or open woodlands with low tree cover appears a 
significant response at lag times of 0 to 3. The distinct pattern 
visible in Figure 3 between forest and grasslands are less 
pronounced, but visible in Figure 5 (TO to T3). 
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
  
  
    
eo : Á 
    
i not sig. 
eese 
E sig. (5%, neg. irends) 
  
Figure 5: NDVI vs Rainfall anomalies significance (t-test) at the 
5% significance level of the regression coefficients at times TO 
to T5. 
3.3 Test for autocorrelation 
A simple test for temporal autocorrelation in the residual is the 
Durbin-Watson (DW) statistics. The outcome of this test is 
shown in Figure 6. A series without serial no autocorrelation 
results in a DW-value of 2.0. Smaller values (0 in the 
minimum) indicate positive autocorrelation whereas higher 
values (4.0 in the maximum) indicate negative autocorrelation. 
Figure 6 demonstrates that the residuals of the distributed lag 
model are indeed white noise using GLS-parameter estimation, 
except for singular, scattered pixels.
	        
Waiting...

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.