×

You are using an outdated browser that does not fully support the intranda viewer.
As a result, some pages may not be displayed correctly.

We recommend you use one of the following browsers:

Full text

Title
Mesures physiques et signatures en télédétection

137
ite all of these
h compositing
quently, pixel
lay also result
it compositing
:w of existing
nporal remote
' algorithm as
:h as m inimum
reward et ai.,
ge (10 percent)
ormed using a
n the AVHRR
sties of clouds.
I the pixels of
m, however, is
laded pixels,
n the AVHRR
: clouds. When
R. will be low.
the cloud and
set a threshold
d further here,
growth pattern
aether the pixel
; following day
iwever, only if
tween previous
;rwise, the low
r the vegetation
erefore, sudden
increase in the
does not ignore
severely cloudgorithms
cloudgorithms used,
ones are listed
tveraged within
ingle maximum
s in that it only
ere presumably
view angles are
aged with other
t, resulting in a
Minimum View Angle (Min View). The NDVI tends to favor off-nadir in the forward direction for natural terrestrial
surfaces. Selecting the maximum NDVI, therefore, creates a bias toward large view angles. In practice, nadir view
angles are preferable because of reduced atmospheric path and bidirectional effects. Consequently, the view angle effect
could be minimized by selecting the pixels with view angles nearest to the nadir. To implement this goal, the algorithm
keeps the maximum and down to 10 percent of the maxima in each composite period (same as in AVG algorithm).
From these remaining pixels, the one with the smallest view angle will be chosen. Again, the assumption is that
variations among the remaining pixels are due to the view angles rather than due to the clouds or the atmospheric
conditions. Consequently, the view angle effects will be minimized, and cloud-affected pixels will not be selected.
Because of the bidirectional effects, this algorithm would, in general, tend to result in a lower vegetation index profile
than the MVC.
Slide Window (SW). Instead of using either the BISE or the MVC criteria alone, this algorithm combines the two in
pixel selections. Starting from the first date, the algorithm searches forward. It compares the next pixel with the previous
one and will accept it if greater than the previous one. When a vegetation index suddenly decreases, the algorithm marks
both that pixel and the previous one. It then continues to search forward for a maximum of n days (slide window).
While searching forward, it compares each pixel with the previously marked high pixel value. It will stop searching if
there is a pixel with a value higher than the previously marked high pixel. Then a new search starts from that date. If
there are no pixels with a value higher than the previously marked high pixel, the algorithm will compare the maximum
value, wi thin the slide window period, with the previously marked low pixel. If the difference between the maximum
and the marked low value is greater than 20 percent of the difference between the previously marked high and low
values, the marked low value pixel will be ignored and the maximum will be selected. A new search will then continue
from the date of the ma ximum . Otherwise, the marked low pixel will be selected, and a new search started from that
date.The advantages of this algorithm are that it (1) keeps more valuable data than the MVC, (2) detects anomalies, (3)
reduces the chance of selecting cloudy pixels, as in BISE, and (4) selects the cleanest pixels if clouds persist for more
than the length of the slide window period.
Choice of Classifier
Sensitivity analysis (Qi et al„ 1994a) indicated that the choice of vegetation indices is dependent upon the purpose of
studies. For compositing satellite data at regional and global scales for arid and semiarid land surface studies, we
selected the following vegetation indices:
1) Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI):
NDVI = ( p N1R - p red ) / ( p NIR + p rcd ) ; (1)
2) Soil adjusted vegetation index (SAVI) of Huete (1988):
SAVI = ( p N[R - p red ) / ( p NIR + p red + L)(1+L); (2)
3) Modified soil adjusted vegetation index (MSAVI) of Qi et al. (1994b):
MSA VI = {[ 2 p NIR +1 - /[ (2 p NIR +1) 2 - 8 ( p NIR - p red ) ] } / 2 ; (3)
and
4) Global environmental monitoring index (GEMI) of Pinty and Verstraete (1992):
GEMI = ti ( 1 - 0.25 p ) - ( p rrt - 0.125 ) / ( 1 - p ^ ), (4)
where
= [ 2 ( p NIR ■ p" mi ) + 1.5 p NIR + 0.5 p rtd )] / ( p N r IR + p rcd ). (5)
RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
Data Set Descriptions
The data set used in this study consisted of daily AVHRR data acquired during 1992 of four different vegetation types
at Hapex Sahel study site (Table 1) near Niamey Niger. The vegetation types included fallow, degraded fallow, mill et,
and tiger bushes. All possible 1.1 km resolution AVHRR data were acquired since early April till the be ginnin g of
November. The data were geometrically, but not atmospherically corrected. The temporal reflectances in red, NIR, and
NDVI profiles of these four study sites are presented in Figure 1. Although differed in vegetation types, these four sites
showed no significant difference in reflectance before compositing algorithms were applied. The cloud-induced noises,
extremely high reflectances in both red and NIR spectral regions, can be easily identified and those zero reflectances
were due to line-drops. These noises can be reduced by compositing since the resultant NDVI classifier had very low
values for these pixels.