Anda di halaman 1dari 25

GIScience & Remote Sensing

ISSN: 1548-1603 (Print) 1943-7226 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgrs20

Fusing MODIS with Landsat 8 data to downscale


weekly normalized difference vegetation index
estimates for central Great Basin rangelands, USA

Stephen P. Boyte, Bruce K. Wylie, Matthew B. Rigge & Devendra Dahal

To cite this article: Stephen P. Boyte, Bruce K. Wylie, Matthew B. Rigge & Devendra Dahal
(2017): Fusing MODIS with Landsat 8 data to downscale weekly normalized difference vegetation
index estimates for central Great Basin rangelands, USA, GIScience & Remote Sensing, DOI:
10.1080/15481603.2017.1382065

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15481603.2017.1382065

Published online: 28 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tgrs20

Download by: [University of Exeter] Date: 30 September 2017, At: 09:09


GIScience & Remote Sensing, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/15481603.2017.1382065

Fusing MODIS with Landsat 8 data to downscale weekly normalized


difference vegetation index estimates for central Great Basin
rangelands, USA
Stephen P. Boyte *a, Bruce K. Wylie b
, Matthew B. Rigge c

and Devendra Dahal a


a
Science Division, Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, Inc., 47914 252nd Street, Sioux Falls, SD
57198, USA; bScience Division, USGS EROS Center, 47914 252nd Street, Sioux Falls, SD 57198,
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

USA; cScience Division, ASRC Federal InuTeq, LLC, 47914 252nd Street, Sioux Falls, SD 57198,
USA
(Received 21 March 2017; accepted 14 September 2017)

Data fused from distinct but complementary satellite sensors mitigate tradeoffs that
researchers make when selecting between spatial and temporal resolutions of remotely
sensed data. We integrated data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor aboard the Terra satellite and the Operational
Land Imager sensor aboard the Landsat 8 satellite into four regression-tree models
and applied those data to a mapping application. This application produced down-
scaled maps that utilize the 30-m spatial resolution of Landsat in conjunction with
daily acquisitions of MODIS normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) that are
composited and temporally smoothed. We produced four weekly, atmospherically
corrected, and nearly cloud-free, downscaled 30-m synthetic MODIS NDVI predic-
tions (maps) built from these models. Model results were strong with R2 values ranging
from 0.74 to 0.85. The correlation coefficients (r 0.89) were strong for all predictions
when compared to corresponding original MODIS NDVI data. Downscaled products
incorporated into independently developed sagebrush ecosystem models yielded mixed
results. The visual quality of the downscaled 30-m synthetic MODIS NDVI predic-
tions were remarkable when compared to the original 250-m MODIS NDVI. These 30-
m maps improve knowledge of dynamic rangeland seasonal processes in the central
Great Basin, United States, and provide land managers improved resource maps.
Keywords: downscale; Landsat; MODIS NDVI; rangeland; resolution

1. Introduction
Abundances, densities, and other characteristics of many geographical phenomena change
at different spatial (Lloyd 2014) and temporal resolutions (Boyte et al. 2015). For remote-
sensing studies that focus on ecological monitoring, the data needs are varied (Wulder
et al. 2012) and the spatial and temporal resolutions of images determine how the data are
used, what stories the data tell, and to whom the data are useful (Atkinson 2013). The
appropriate spatial resolution may be moderate (e.g., 30 m) to very high (e.g., 1 m) if an
area is heterogeneous and the target species is difficult to delineate from surrounding
species (Tewes et al. 2015), or if a users need or analysis is relevant at a local scale, as
mentioned in an email from Charley Martin via Jeffrey Hess, LANDFIRE task manager, 6

*Corresponding author. Email: stephen.boyte.ctr@usgs.gov spboyte@gmail.com

2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group


2 S.P. Boyte et al.

June 2017. A moderate-to-coarse spatial resolution sensor (e.g., 250 m) may be appro-
priate if a study area is homogeneous (Woodcock and Strahler 1987), at a regional or
global scale, or if the target species has a feature or characteristic, like phenology, that can
delineate that species from surrounding ones (Kokaly 2011). If the spatial size of a target
phenomenon is much finer than the spatial resolution of the remotely sensed imagery, then
the ability to detect and identify that phenomenon can be hindered and statistics generated
from the imagery can lack important detail (Maynard, Karl, and Browning 2016; Hwang
et al. 2011). From a temporal perspective, resolution should be frequent enough to be able
to mitigate cloud, shadow, and atmospheric contaminants and still capture a target species
response to its drivers (Kennedy et al. 2014), or the opportunity to capture critical data can
be lost. This principle applies whether the drivers are phenomena like precipitation,
phenology, or elevation. For example, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) is a fast-growing,
exotic winter annual that dominates areas of the Snake River Plain (Boyte, Wylie, and
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

Major 2016) and the Great Basin (Bradley and Mustard 2005, 2006) and increases fire
frequency (Balch et al. 2013). Cheatgrass germinates anytime from fall through spring if
seeds receive adequate amounts of moisture (Mack and Pyke 1984) and temperatures are
warm enough. When temperatures trend upward in spring, if soil moisture is adequate,
cheatgrass seeds will germinate and start growing, if they have not already. As a fast-
growing plant, cheatgrass completes growth, sets seed, senesces (turns red), and cures
(turns yellow) in a few to several weeks in spring. Some satellite sensors can sense the
spring green up and color changes that accompany the life cycle of cheatgrass and
separate them from signals of other vegetation types that green up later (Boyte et al.
2015). Satellites with coarse temporal resolutions (e.g., 16 days), however, can miss these
rapidly changing cheatgrass dynamics, especially with clouds and cloud shadows con-
taminating satellite scenes and causing drops in data values unrelated to vegetation
dynamics. To mitigate this contamination, French et al. (2013) recommend the use of
sensor measurements that are repeated frequently, but satellites with daily acquisition
schedules do not acquire data at moderate- or fine-scale spatial resolutions. However,
coarse spatial resolution data do not capture important ecological details necessary for
local-scale analysis. While the selection of appropriate satellite imagery is critical to the
success of ecological studies that use remotely sensed data, a single satellites data may be
insufficient for many studies (Kennedy et al. 2009; Gao et al. 2015). Fusing data from
complementary satellite sensors can help make the spatial and temporal tradeoffs in
selecting satellite data unnecessary.
Since the 1990s, researchers have developed techniques to mitigate resolution chal-
lenges by fusing data from multiple bands or satellites to exploit their distinctive features
and achieve study goals (Homer et al. 2012; Xian et al. 2015; Shettigara 1992; Gao et al.
2006). This includes fusing data to reduce the difficulty of finding an image with no
cloud, shadow, or atmospheric contamination (Chang, Bai, and Chen 2017; Roy et al.
2006), especially if specific dates of imagery are needed. Many of the techniques devel-
oped to fuse data from multiple bands or satellites are outlined in Pohl and Van Genderen
(2014) and Zhang (2010). The initial methods developed use a panchromatic band to
sharpen multispectral images from the same sensor and include intensity hue saturation
transformation, principal component analysis, and Brovey transformation, among others
(Pohl and Van Genderen 2014; Wang et al. 2017). With advances in satellite data, e.g.
increases in the number of spectral bands and finer spatial resolutions, the field of data
fusion matured and researchers developed new techniques, including hybrid techniques
and updated versions of the initial techniques, to accommodate these advances (Pohl and
van Genderen 2014). In addition, researchers created approaches like the Spatial and
GIScience & Remote Sensing 3

Temporal Adaptive Reflectance Fusion (STARFM), enhanced STARFM, and the Spatial
Temporal Adaptive Algorithm for mapping Reflective Change (STAARCH), which fuse
the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) with Landsat data to create
time series of synthetic Landsat images that have moderate spatial resolution and high
temporal resolution (Gao et al. 2015). Recently, research studies integrated data from
multiple sensors into machine-learning software to predict water-quality conditions
(Chang, Bai, and Chen 2017) and to enhance the spatial resolution of the integration of
growing season NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) (GSN) (Gu and Wylie
2015a, 2015b).
We needed remotely sensed data that provide both high temporal frequency for cloud-
free observations and moderate spatial resolution to enhance landscape characteristics
(Walker et al. 2012). We, therefore, integrated data from two sensors: Terra MODIS and
Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI). The Terra MODIS platform provides daily
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

acquisitions of coarse spatial resolution data, and we used a MODIS derivative, enhanced
MODIS NDVI (eMODIS NDVI), at 250-m spatial resolution. The eMODIS NDVI is a 7-
day, best-pixel composite product that is output in weekly time steps. The best-pixel
composite process mitigates cloud and atmospheric issues. Landsat 8 OLI provides
multiple bands of data with moderate spatial resolution (30 m) and a 16-day acquisition
schedule. Moderate resolution data can be beneficial for many applications. For example,
gathering field data to train an ecological model or to validate remotely sensed work is
more cost and time efficient at a 30-m than at a 250-m resolution. Additionally, many
ecological studies require spatial resolutions smaller than 250 m, and landscape details
like roads, vegetation patches, and burn scar patterns are more easily identified at 30-m
spatial resolution. In short, greater spatial detail can facilitate a better understanding of a
study areas ecological character and attributes.
This paper describes the process where we integrated data from eMODIS NDVI and
Landsat 8 into regression-tree modeling software to take advantage of eMODIS NDVIs
fine temporal resolution and Landsat 8s moderate spatial resolution. The result was four
weekly, nearly cloud-free, synthetic images at 30-m spatial resolution that measured the
relative abundance, greenness, and seasonal dynamics of vegetation in central Great Basin
rangelands, United States. The process we describe differs from the previously mentioned
data fusion methods in several ways. First, it fuses 30-m Landsat data with 250-m
eMODIS NDVI data to downscale spatially the eMODIS NDVI data to 30 m. By
downscaling eMODIS NDVI data, the characteristics of eMODIS NDVI (Jenkerson,
Maiersperger, and Schmidt 2010), including the weekly time steps and the mitigation of
cloud and shadow contamination, are retained in the predicted MODIS-equivalent NDVI.
Second, it does not require identical dates of MODIS and Landsat imagery like the
STARFM, enhanced STARFM, and STAARCH approaches (Gao et al. 2015). Third,
unlike these other three approaches, the regression-tree approach we present does not
require cloud-free images before, on, and after the target date to predict, what is essen-
tially, cloud-free NDVI. This approach automatically makes its prediction using the best
available data. Fourth, the regression-tree method develops its prediction based on
relationships between the dependent variable (eMODIS NDVI) and the independent
variables (Landsat bands) (Wylie et al. 2008) and not on specific characteristics of
disparate sensor wavelengths.
The goal of this study was to exploit the temporal resolution and the atmospheric
characteristics of eMODIS NDVI and the spatial resolution of Landsat 8 to develop
synthetic 30-m eMODIS NDVI. The Landsat 8 data functioned as the independent
variables and the eMODIS NDVI data as the dependent variables to create several
4 S.P. Boyte et al.

ecological models. The models algorithms and parameters were used in conjunction with
the Landsat 8 rasters (bands 27) and a mapping application to spatially downscale the
eMODIS NDVI data to 30-m spatial resolution. This process produced maps that char-
acterized the moderate spatial resolution details of landscape features, retained the tem-
poral (weekly) resolution of composited eMODIS NDVI, and captured biophysical
characteristics with much less cloud, shadow, and atmospheric contamination. We
hypothesized that integrating the Landsat 8 data with eMODIS NDVI would produce
valid models and downscaled maps with substantially greater spatial and temporal detail
that included atmospheric corrections. We also hypothesized that these downscaled
datasets, when used as independent variables in sagebrush ecosystem models that map
predictions of continuous rangeland land cover (Homer et al. 2012; Xian et al. 2015),
would improve those models accuracy.
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

2. Methods and materials


2.1. Study area
The central Great Basin (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2009) generally
defines our study area. The area is located in the western United States, primarily in
Nevada and western Utah (Figure 1). The area includes a small section of eastern
California. Elevations range from 932 to 4273 m with an average elevation of 1778 m
(North American Vertical Datum 88). The area experiences mild winters and hot sum-
mers. Average temperatures range from 2C in the higher mountains to about 14C in
lower elevation areas that are located in the southern part of the study area. Average
annual precipitation equals about 277 mm but ranges from less than 10 mm in lowlands to
more than 1000 mm at mountain tops (Wiken, Francisco, and Griffith 2011). Rangelands
are the focus of this study, and we identify rangelands as areas dominated by grassland/

Figure 1. The study area overlain on the 2011 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) land-cover
classes. For full colour versions of the figures in this paper, please see the online version.
GIScience & Remote Sensing 5

herbaceous, shrub/scrub, or barren classifications (The National Land Cover Database


2011). Shrubs in the area are plentiful and include Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia
tridentata Nutt. wyomingensis), shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), black sagebrush
(Artemisia nova), greasewood (Sarcobatus Nees), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata),
rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus Nutt.), bitterbrush (Purshia DC), and Nuttall saltbush
(Atriplex nuttallii). Herbaceous plants include bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria
spicata [Pursh] Lve), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides Barkworth), and
squirreltail (Elymus elymoides [Raf.] Swezey) (Wiken, Francisco, and Griffith 2011).
Cheatgrass is relatively common in the northern part of the study area (Boyte, Wylie,
and Major 2016; Bradley and Mustard 2006). Many barren areas are present across the
study area, especially in the northeast, which includes part of the Great Salt Desert
(Figure 1).
The landscape drains internally, and playa lakes are relatively common. Well-known
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

lakes include Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake. Numerous smaller cities and towns dot
the landscape, but much of the area is devoid of human habitation. Portions of two large
metropolitan statistical areas are located on the study areas eastern and western edges:
Salt Lake City and Reno-Sparks.

2.2. Data
2.2.1. eMODIS NDVI data and preparation
The eMODIS NDVI (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/) is a derivative of MODIS data
acquired by the Terra and Aqua satellites that are operated by NASA. We use data from
the Terra satellite. eMODIS is useful for trend analysis and near-real-time studies and is
available at 250, 500, and 1000-m spatial resolutions. eMODIS NDVI is a 250-m spatial
resolution product that is created using the MODIS red and near-infrared (NIR) surface
reflectance data (Table 1) in a simple normalization (Equation (1)) (Jenkerson,
Maiersperger, and Schmidt 2010). NDVI is a commonly used index in remote-sensing
vegetation studies because it distinguishes vegetation from bare ground and snow cover
and provides a measure of vegetation vigor and dynamics (Jensen 2005; Ke et al. 2015).
The normalized difference of the red and infrared spectral channels helps eliminate a
portion of the noise inherent to remotely sensed data. Therefore, when examining
vegetation conditions, the NDVI provides a stable spatial and temporal record of vegeta-
tion greenness (Hwang et al. 2011). The process that produces eMODIS NDVI uses a
maximum-value-composite algorithm that identifies the best pixel in each 7-day period by
filtering through input surface reflectance of poor quality, negative values, low view

Table 1. Band characteristics for Terra MODIS NDVI and Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager.

Band number Spectral range (nm)

Band name MODIS NDVI Landsat 8 MODIS NDVI Landsat 8

Red 1 4 620670 630680


Near-infrared 2 5 841876 845885
Blue 2 450515
Green 3 525600
Shortwave infrared 1 6 15601660
Shortwave infrared 2 7 21002300
6 S.P. Boyte et al.

angles, clouds, and snow cover (Jenkerson, Maiersperger, and Schmidt 2010). These data
are available in weekly, 7-day composites. Additionally, to mitigate the effects of possible
residual cloud cover, we temporally smoothed the weekly composites using a weighted,
least-squares approach. The temporal smoothing of the weekly NDVI can reliably inter-
polate across temporary drops in NDVI associated with residual clouds after the weekly
best-pixel NDVI compositing (Swets et al. 2000). Together, the compositing and smooth-
ing processes mitigated most cloud-caused data inconsistencies (Brown et al. 2015).

NIR  Red
NDVI (1)
NIR Red

where NIR and red represent the spectral reflectance measurements, respectively, in the
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

NIR and red regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.

2.2.2. Landsat 8 composite data and preparation


We used tiled, best-pixel Landsat composites (bands 27) built with the Multi-Index
Integrated Change Analysis method and used by the LANDFIRE Remote Sensing of
Landscape Change process. These best-pixel composites were constructed from algo-
rithm-driven, 30-m Landsat 8 Level 1T composite scenes with cloud cover of less than
80% (Nelson and Steinwand 2015). An algorithm to convert Landsat 8 Level 1T data to
surface reflectance was unavailable when this study occurred. Therefore, the Landsat 8
data were converted to top-of-atmosphere reflectance (Nelson and Steinwand 2015). Two
best-pixel composites, each built from as many as six consecutive dates of Landsat 8 data,
were available for this study. These composites reflect (1) an early summer date centered
on day-of-year (DOY) 175 with pixels that ranged from DOY 100 to DOY 199 and (2) a
late summer date centered on DOY 250 with pixels that ranged from DOY 200 to DOY
299 (Nelson and Steinwand 2015). These best-pixel Landsat 8 tiles were developed
primarily to mitigate cloud and shadow issues that can contaminate individual Landsat
scenes. These two composites of Landsat 8 data were averaged spatially using a 7 7
moving window. This process assigns each 30-m pixel a value using the average of the
nearest 49 pixel values to produce a more accurate representation of the 250-m data. We
then resampled the Landsat best-pixel composites to 250 m using nearest neighbor to
match the spatial resolution of the eMODIS NDVI data.

2.2.3. Data selection and use


We downscaled temporally smoothed, composited images of 250-m eMODIS NDVI with
best-pixel Landsat composite tiles to create 30-m satellite-based datasets that mitigated
cloud and shadow contamination and captured seasonal vegetation dynamics. The down-
scaled eMODIS NDVI represented 4 weeks from the year 2013 and served as independent
variables in independently developed sagebrush ecosystem models for 2014. These
models were designed to predict sagebrush ecosystem land-cover types as fractional
components that included herbaceous plants and shrubs (Xian et al. 2015; Homer et al.
2012). Landsat data in best-pixel format (Nelson and Steinwand 2015) were not available
for 2014 at the time of processing for this study, so we downscaled 2013 eMODIS NDVI
data using 2013 best-pixel Landsat data. We understood that 2 years of NDVI values
GIScience & Remote Sensing 7

could differ substantially because of annual disturbances, management, and weather


effects on plant phenology and growth, and that these differences could affect how the
2014 sagebrush ecosystem model responded to these 2013 downscaled eMODIS NDVI
variables.
Dates of eMODIS NDVI weekly composites selected for downscale complemented
the Landsat data that were used in the sagebrush ecosystem models. These Landsat data
(different from the best-pixel Landsat composites described above) used in the sagebrush
ecosystem models blended multiple dates of Landsat images to mitigate cloud and shadow
effects. The eMODIS NDVI composites targeted phenological periods in 2013 that were
important for distinguishing rangeland vegetation types in the central Great Basin. These
weeks of NDVI represented spring (mean of weeks 17 and 18) to capture annual grass
greenness and early summer (week 27) to capture annual grass senescence. The weeks of
downscaled NDVI also represented late summer (week 37) to differentiate between
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

sagebrush (Artemisia) and other shrubs phenologies and fall (week 43) to differentiate
sagebrush, which does not lose all leaves, from other shrubs that do lose all leaves
(Figure 2 and Table 2). We used arrows in Figure 2 to indicate the weeks of NDVI
selected above and describe in the caption why these dates were chosen. We used brackets
to show the range of dates for the Landsat data that were blended for the sagebrush
ecosystem models.

Figure 2. Average 2013 eMODIS NDVI profiles of some rangeland vegetation classifications in
the study area. We used this chart to identify 4 weeks of ecological interest for downscaling
eMODIS NDVI based on the timing of vegetation phenology. We also considered the dates of
blended Landsat data that are collected for the sagebrush ecosystem models. The arrows identify the
weeks of interest for downscaling eMODIS NDVI and correspond to weeks 17 and 18, 27, 37, and
43. The arrow at weeks 17 and 18 shows when the study areas average annual herbaceous
greenness neared its peak, a profile it maintained for approximately 6 weeks. The arrow at week
27 points to a flattening of that profile and indicates the end of annual herbaceous plant senescence.
The optimal time to distinguish between the all-sage and the non-sage shrub using remote sensing
occurred at week 37 when the difference between these two vegetation types profile was greatest.
Week 43 began the flattening of the all-sage profile, a time when sagebrush contained the fewest
leaves and other shrubs had none. This flattening persisted until about week 48 when the profile
dipped precipitously, likely the result of snow contaminating the satellite scenes. The brackets
enclose the dates of blended Landsat images and correspond to weeks 2023, weeks 2630, and
weeks 3438.
8 S.P. Boyte et al.

Table 2. Downscaled eMODIS NDVI ecological periods identified by week of


year, the corresponding calendar period, and season for the year 2013.

Week Calendar period Season

17 and 18a 21 April4 May Spring


27 30 June6 July Early summer
37 814 September Late summer
43 2026 October Fall

Note: aWe use the eMODIS NDVI mean value of weeks 17 and 18.

2.3. Model and map development


Cubist (RuleQuest 2008) regression-tree software was used to build rule-based models
that incorporated the spatially averaged 250-m Landsat 8 composites as independent
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

variables to predict the dependent variable as a continuous variable (Quinlan 2008)


(Figure 3). All models included five committees (similar to a boosted tree), and each
committee had a set number of rules. Table 3 shows the average number of committee
rules per model. Models trained on a wide range of environmental and ecological
conditions that use a large number of training points create robust models that achieve
the best results (Gu et al. 2012). In the current study, we extracted data from more than
124,000 randomly stratified points each for four regression-tree models. The training data
were stratified so that each training value contributed a minimum of 1020 training points

Figure 3. A schematic that identifies the data and illustrates the process to downscale 250-m
eMODIS NDVI using Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) data.
GIScience & Remote Sensing 9

Table 3. Variable usage frequency, structure, and accuracy metrics for the four models.

Model weeks Variable


Driving variables 17 and 18 27 37 43 Average

DOY and Landsat 8 bands


D175 band 2 (Blue) 41 97 76 95 74 88 65 88 78
D175 band 4 (Red) 85 85 63 99 20 95 61 92 75
D250 band 4 (Red) 16 98 40 92 67 99 72 98 73
D175 band 5 (NIRa) 77 99 37 99 18 90 49 88 70
D175 band 6 (SWIRb 1) 46 88 48 68 27 84 58 82 63
D250 band 5 (NIR) 12 75 13 96 39 100 59 98 62
D175 band 3 (Green) 52 98 10 99 5 97 5 90 57
D250 band 3 (Green) 5 96 96 4 90 1 91 55
D175 band 7 (SWIR 2) 29 87 2 85 71 11 94 54
D250 band 6 (SWIR 1) 6 83 71 2 87 7 93 50
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

D250 band 2 (Blue) 10 87 4 95 3 95 4 78 47


D250 band 7 (SWIR 2) 18 73 2 71 11 83 22 99 47
D175 average usage 55 92 39 91 24 88 42 89 66
D250 average usage 11 85 10 87 21 92 28 93 56
Model weeks 1718 27 37 43
Model structure 5 committee 5 committee 5 committee 5 committee
Average rules per committee 89 52 30 127
Training points (n) 124,079 128,649 127,170 128,669
Test points (n) 9901 10,250 10,149 10,250
Training R2 0.85 0.81 0.74 0.76
Average absolute error 2.1 1.7 2.2 2.5
Relative absolute error 0.34 0.32 0.42 0.41
Training cross-validation R2 0.85 0.81 0.74 0.74
Test R2 0.85 0.83 0.74 0.77
Average absolute error 2.2 1.6 2.1 2.4
Relative absolute error 0.35 0.33 0.42 0.41
Notes: aNear-infrared.bShortwave infrared.The table shows the frequency (%) that each driving variable is used
in each model to stratify rules (boldface numerals) and to develop algorithms (light-faced numerals). Dashes
indicate variable not used. The rightmost column shows average model usage for each band. Average error equals
the mean difference of the actual and predicted values at all training or test points. The relative error magnitude is
the ratio of the average error magnitude to the error magnitude that results from always predicting the mean
value. A useful model requires a relative error of less than one. Cross-validation represents 10 holdout cases run
independently and averaged.

unless that many points did not exist at a value. If enough points at a specific value did not
exist, then the model used all available points at that value for training.
The spring model targeted annual grasses. Therefore, training points for the spring
model were limited to elevations less than or equal to 2133 m. We chose this threshold
based on previous cheatgrass percent cover work where we found that, as a dominant
annual grass, cheatgrass covered an average of less than 2% of the land area at elevations
between 1750 and 2000 m in the northern Great Basin (Boyte, Wylie, and Major 2016).
For the other three downscaled models, points above 2133 m were allowed but limited to
approximately 2.5% of the training and test datasets to eliminate potential model bias.
Otherwise, the four models were trained on pixels where the 2011 National Land Cover
Database (The National Land Cover Database 2011) classified the pixel as greater than or
equal to 70% shrub/scrub, herbaceous, or bare ground and where tree canopy was less
than 30%. Pixels in these classifications represent likely rangelands. In addition, if both
10 S.P. Boyte et al.

DOY 175 and DOY 250 Landsat 8 images had no data or a zero value (clouds or water) in
the same pixel, we excluded that pixel as a training point.
The rule-based, regression-tree models built parameters and algorithms at 250 m based
on the relationships between the variables by partitioning the data into information
subspaces (rules), rules that were each fit with a linear-regression equation (Wylie et al.
2007). We show, as an example, the model output of one stratification and its associated
algorithm. In our training dataset, 2000 training cases meet the following criteria where all
bands are Landsat 8 data used as independent variables:

if
Band 01 > 758 and
Band 01 1303 and
Band 09 > 1434
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

then
eMODIS NDVI prediction = 123.20.0359 (band 09)
+ 0.0246 (band 10) 0.0176 (band 01)
+0.0137 (band 02) + 0.0118 (band 07) + 0.0045 (band 06)
0.00341 (band 05)
0.0034 (band 12) 0.0021 (band 08) 0.0003 (band 03)
0.0002 (band 11)
The 2000 training cases prediction: mean = 124.4, range 107189, average estimated
error = 3.2.
These rules and their associated linear equations were input along with the original 30-
m Landsat 8 rasters into mapping software. The mapping software applied these rule-
based parameters and algorithms from the 250-m models to the best-pixel composited, 30-
m Landsat 8 rasters and generated spatially explicit, 30-m eMODIS NDVI predictions that
estimated NDVI for each of the four weekly periods. These datasets are available at Boyte
et al. (2017).
Figure 4 illustrates an advantage of the regression-tree approach the ability of the
regression-tree model and mapping process to ameliorate effects from less-than-optimal
input data. The Landsat 8 composite for DOY 175 (Figure 4(a)) shows numerous
pixels flagged as cloud or cloud shadow (black areas having no data). The eMODIS
NDVI prediction did not carry over these values; instead, its prediction was based on
the DOY 250 data. This resulted in a prediction much more reflective of the Google
Earth image (Figure 4(d)). The arrow in the DOY 250 Landsat composite (Figure 4(b))
points to a distinct line where disparate dates of imagery were merged to create the
composite. No line was visible in the same area in the DOY 175 Landsat (Figure 4(a))
composite. The eMODIS NDVI prediction (Figure 4(c)) shows no evidence of this
line, which was contrary to what occurred when the STARFM approach was used in
similar circumstances (Walker et al. 2012). In addition, the blue circle in Figure 4
encompasses an area where both DOY 175 and DOY 250 Landsat composites experi-
enced no data values (no training points were cast in this area). The corresponding area
in the eMODIS NDVI prediction showed reasonable NDVI values for this area in a
pattern that resembled the overlapping no-data values from the two composites. This
finding strongly suggests that, in some instances, when the regression-tree model was
optimally parameterized (Gu et al. 2016), the modeling and mapping processes elimi-
nated the effects of spatial artifacts and mitigated no-data values that occurred in input
data.
GIScience & Remote Sensing 11
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

Figure 4. A subset of 1 week of the eMODIS NDVI prediction compared to the Landsat 8 best-
pixel composite images used as model drivers, with Google Earth as a reference. The arrow and
circle highlight problem areas with input data, a line caused by compositing Landsat data in one
image and no data values in both images. The eMODIS NDVI prediction mitigates these issues,
showing no evidence of a composite line and predicting reasonable NDVI values in place of no data
values. The eMODIS NDVI was scaled from the typical 11 scale. The new scale is 0200
(100x + 100) to remove the data requirement to store negative values. The center coordinates for the
images equal approximately 113577.1W 40172.2N. (a) Landsat 8 best-pixel composite DOY
175 (Bands 24), (b) Landsat 8 best-pixel composite DOY 250 (Bands 24), (c) week 17-18
eMODIS NOVI predicted (30 m), (d) Google Earth image May and October 2013.

2.4. Model and map validation and assessment


Model outputs included accuracy assessments that compared training and test data values
with corresponding predicted values. Accuracy assessment metrics included correlation
coefficient (r), average absolute error, and relative absolute error for both training and test
datasets. The relative error magnitude was the ratio of the average error magnitude
compared with the error magnitude that resulted from always predicting an average
value. Useful models experienced relative errors less than one (Quinlan 2008). The test
data were independent from the training data that were used to develop rules, algorithms,
or parameters that predicted the dependent variable. Consequently, the test dataset
12 S.P. Boyte et al.

provided a measurement of the data unseen by the model, an independent test of model
accuracy. We also performed separate cross-validations of each model with 10-folds
(equal-sized subsets) where training datasets were divided randomly. For each model,
nine of the folds predicted the target values while onefold served as a test. This process
was repeated 10 times such that every observation was used as a test once. The average of
the mean absolute error across all 10-folds provided the random cross-validation accuracy
assessment metric.
The downscaled 30-m eMODIS NDVI spatially explicit datasets were added to the
sagebrush ecosystem models to improve predictions. We evaluated the effects that these
downscaled datasets had on several of the sagebrush ecosystem models, measuring the
difference in sagebrush ecosystem-model metrics when these downscaled datasets were
and were not included as independent variables. The components of the sagebrush
ecosystem models included annual herbaceous, bare ground, herbaceous, litter, sagebrush,
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

and non-sage shrub (Table 4). Two assessments were undertaken. First, both versions of
each of the six sagebrush ecosystem model outputs were validated using 135 points of
independently gathered field data. Independent validation points were located within
randomly selected 7-km radius sites. In each site, we randomly placed 910 points in
non-forested areas within 750 m of the nearest road. Second, each model was cross
validated at 40,000 data points. Metrics used to evaluate the comparison of these models
included the range of each components values, the coefficient of determination (R2), and
the root mean squared error (RMSE).
Additionally, we visually compared a few small sections of the eMODIS NDVI
images at 250 and 30 m to highlight spatial differences in landscape features like

Table 4. Changes in independent (n = 135) and cross-validation (n = 40,000) statistical metrics


associated with the addition of various downscaled eMODIS NDVI images as independent variables
in component regression-tree models.

Weeks 17, 18 and 27 Weeks 17, 18 and 43 All weeksa


Metric Metric Metric

Model component Range R2 RMSE Range R2 RMSE Range R2 RMSE

Ind. validation
Annual herb. 1 0.02 0.10
Bare ground 3 0.01 0.00 4 0.03 0.00 0 0.04 0.01
Herbaceous 5 0.03 0.14 2 0.04 0.01 6 0.16 0.00
Litter 0 0.00 0.04
Sagebrush 1 0.04 0.27
Non-sage shrub 1 0.17 0.00 0 0.01 0.00 5 0.14 0.07
Cross-valid.
Annual herb. 1 0.00 0.01
Bare ground 1 0.00 0.07 0 0.01 0.10 1 0.17 3.07
Herbaceous 0 0.00 0.02 0 0.00 0.01
Litter 1 0.01 0.07
Sagebrush 2 0.00 0.01
Non-sage shrub 3 0.00 0.04 0 0.01 0.17 19 0.23 2.05

Notes: aAll four downscaled dates: weeks 17 and 18, week 27, week 37, and week 43.Changes are assessed
relative to a version with no downscaled dates, with all other variables held constant. Weeks 17 and 18 and 43
and all tests were conducted only for bare, herbaceous, and shrub cover.
GIScience & Remote Sensing 13

center-pivot irrigation, roads, elevational changes, and fire effects on NDVI. We also
visually evaluated NDVI, comparing seasonal changes in vegetation greenness. Finally,
we statistically compared the original 250-m eMODIS NDVI to the predicted 30-m
eMODIS NDVI after it was spatially averaged and resampled to 250 m. To do this
statistical comparison, we accounted for possible image misregistration of remotely
sensed data (daily MODIS images and Landsat scenes) in the sample population. Image
shifts can cause unexpected results and have been especially acute when working with
time series data. We accounted for image misregistration by developing a spatial coeffi-
cient of variation (CV) that we used to filter out sample pixels with high CV values (slight
geographic misregistration in more uniform areas would cause negligible effects). Sample
population pixels were eliminated if their CV values were at least three times greater than
the mean CV value in the 250-m eMODIS NDVI prediction. The spatial averaging of the
predictions generalized their 30-m outputs, but this method provided a direct evaluation of
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

mapping accuracy.

3. Results
3.1. Variable usage, model structure, and accuracy assessment
The regression-tree models generated metrics that measured how frequently each variable
was used to stratify model rules and to develop model algorithms. This model transpar-
ency allowed the identification of variables most influential to model development for the
downscaled predictions (Table 3). Overall, algorithm development (light-faced numerals
in Table 3) used variables far more frequently than did rules stratification (bold-faced
numerals in Table 3), although the DOY 175 red band was used equally for both activities
(85%) during weeks 17 and 18. The NIR band from DOY 175 was used, on average,
more frequently for weeks 17 and 18 (88%) than any other variable. The average of all
weeks for the DOY 175 blue band (78%) was higher than the average of all weeks for any
other variable. The DOY 175 blue band was used slightly more often than the red bands
from Day 175 (75%) and Day 250 (73%). The blue and the shortwave infrared 2 bands
from DOY 250 (47%) tied for least frequently used variables in model development. On
average, variables from DOY 175 (66%) were used more often than variables from DOY
250 (56%). The two strongest models built were for weeks 17 and 18 and week 27. Weeks
17 and 18 experienced the highest test R2 (0.85), while week 27 experienced the lowest
test average absolute error (1.7) and the lowest test relative absolute error (0.32). The
week 37 and week 43 models were relatively strong with test absolute average errors
equal to 0.42 and 0.41, respectively. Each model developed was useful with strong to very
strong R2 values and low average absolute and relative absolute errors. The R2 test dataset
values equaled the R2 training dataset values in weeks 17 and 18 and week 37 and slightly
exceeded the training R2 values for week 27 and week 43. These results suggest well-
fitted models.
Accuracy metrics for the sagebrush ecosystem models that included and excluded
downscaled 2013 eMODIS NDVI images are displayed in Table 3. Mixed results occurred
when using these data as independent variables for the 2014 sagebrush ecosystem models,
although only a few results showed dramatic improvement or degradation. When down-
scaled NDVI data from weeks 17 and 18 and week 27 were used, the model that predicted
annual herbaceous cover improved in all metrics. The range increased by 1, the R2
increased by 0.02, and the RMSE declined by 0.10. However, the models that predicted
sagebrush and herbaceous cover, which included both annual and perennial herbaceous,
14 S.P. Boyte et al.

each experienced degradation in all metrics when using weeks 17 and 18 and week 27
downscaled eMODIS NDVI. The range of herbaceous cover expanded when week 43 was
substituted for week 27 and when all four weekly downscaled images were included. The
cross-validation statistics showed improved RMSEs for all six components when NDVI
from weeks 17 and 18 and week 27 were added to the models but had a negligible effect
on their R2 values. The effect on the model was negligible when the non-sage shrub model
included the downscaled image from weeks 17 and 18 and week 43. Any of the models
that used all four downscaled dates experienced reduced R2 and RMSE values.
Comparing the original eMODIS NDVI data to corresponding predicted 250-m
eMODIS NDVI mapping outputs showed strong relationships. Across 932 sample points
on the weeks 17 and 18 scatterplot (Figure 5(a)), the data mostly were tightly clustered
around the regression and the 1:1 lines with few exceptions, and the R2 was 0.83. Table 5
shows the RMSE was 3.37, and the nRMSE was 0.06. The nRMSE is the normalized
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

RMSE, a dimensionless statistic that removes the effects of a datasets range from the
metric (Homer et al. 2012). The scatterplots for week 27 (Figure 5(b)), week 37 (Figure 5
(c)), and week 43 (Figure 5(d)) included sample points (open circles) above an elevation
threshold of 2133 m. The week 27 correlation coefficient (0.91) matched that of weeks 17
and 18, but the week 27 RMSE and nRMSE were lower (3.05, 0.03) (Table 5), showing
better agreement between the original and the predicted eMODIS NDVI. The higher
elevation points in week 27 were mostly restricted to lower NDVI values, with a

Figure 5. Scatterplots comparing original 250-m eMODIS NDVI datasets with predicted 30-m
eMODIS NDVI datasets that are spatially averaged and resampled to 250 m. We trained the model
for the weeks 17 and 18 (a) at or below an elevation of 2133 m (~7000 ft); therefore, this weeks
analysis includes no sample points cast above this elevation. Two models each for weeks 27 (b), 37
(c), and 43 (d) are trained, one at or below elevations equal to 2133 m and the other above 2133 m.
The solid black lines are 1:1 lines and the dashed lines are regression lines. Solid circles represent
sample points at or below 2133 m and open circles represent sample points above 2133 m. See
Table 5 for statistics that describe the relationships between datasets for each week.
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

Table 5. Statistics describing the relationship between the original 250-m eMODIS NDVI datasets and the predicted 30-m eMODIS NDVI datasets that are
spatially averaged and resampled to 250 m.

Statistic Week 17 and 18 Week 27 Week 37 Week 43

r 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.89


Linear equation y = 0.942x + 6.9298 y = 0.9696x + 4.1027 y = 1.004x 0.2529 y = 0.9639x + 4.4826
RMSE 3.37 3.04 2.72 3.61
nRMSE 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.08
Sample points 932 924 938 920
2133 m
Sample points Not applicable 57 72 97
>2133 m

Note: The nRMSE is the normalized root mean squared error, a dimensionless statistics that removes the effects of a datasets range of values.
GIScience & Remote Sensing
15
16 S.P. Boyte et al.

maximum value of 147 and a range of 37 (the eMODIS NDVI is scaled 100x + 100 to
remove negative values). This restriction of higher elevation points to lower NDVI values
was less pronounced in week 37 and week 43 scatterplots where maximum values were
higher and the range of values was broader. The outliers in weeks 17 and 18 were mostly
overpredictions, whereas most outliers in week 37 and week 43 were underpredictions.
Week 27 experienced outliers, both as underpredictions and overpredictions. All regres-
sion lines fell extremely close to their corresponding 1:1 lines.

3.2. Visual comparison of 250 and 30-m eMODIS NDVI


Figure 6(ah) shows the same geographic space, and these images allowed visual
comparison of a small section of the four original 250-m eMODIS NDVI to the four
corresponding modeled 30-m eMODIS NDVI predictions. These visual comparisons
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

included an evaluation of vegetation greenness for each week that we modeled.


Additionally, the weeks 17 and 18 images provided an example of how the selection of
model training points influenced mapping accuracy. As stated earlier, we intentionally did
not train the weeks 17 and 18 model at elevations above 2133 m; therefore, we did not
calibrate the model to conditions above this threshold. In the upper left corner of the
original 250-m image (Figure 6(b)), where elevations were higher than 2400 m, very low
NDVI values were present, indicating the presence of no vegetation greenness (gray
shaded area). In fact, much of the ground cover was likely snow. In the same area of
the corresponding 30-m prediction (Figure 6(a)), most of the NDVI values were much
higher, indicating substantial vegetation greenness with some bare ground, but no snow.
The error in the 30-m prediction map occurred because of the lack of model calibration at
elevations above 2133 m. This same error was not repeated in the predictions of the three
other weeks because their models included training points above 2133-m elevation.
The general spatial trends matched between the images in Figure 6, but the level of
spatial detail was remarkable in the 30-m predictions when compared to the 250-m
eMODIS NDVI. Center-pivot agriculture artifacts were clearly discernible as round
green features in all 30-m images, whereas in the 250-m images, these artifacts appeared
as squares that do not resemble center-pivot irrigation. In Figure 6(a), a road was clearly
visible through the center of the image (the road was much more difficult to see in the
other 30-m images because the NDVI values in the immediate area do not provide a
contrast for the road). This road was not distinguishable in any 250-m image. Channels
that divert water runoff from higher ground were evident in the 30-m images. These
channels provide more mesic environments that promote vegetation growth and greenness
during the growing season, hence the higher NDVI values. These channels were con-
siderably more difficult to recognize and much less detailed in the 250-m images because
of their substantially lower spatial resolutions. Seasonal differences also were detected in
the greenness of the images (note that Figure 6(a) exaggerated greenness at higher
elevations). Early and late growing season periods (Figure 6(b), (gh), respectively)
showed less greenness than the middle of growing season period (Figure 6(cf)) because
of the timing of these images. Missing from the images in Figure 6 were visible residuals
from cloud, shadow, and atmospheric contamination. The widths of the red and NIR
bands along with the compositing and temporal smoothing of the eMODIS NDVI
mitigated these problems, which can affect any remotely sensed product. Artifacts of
these issues were not evident in these images.
In Figure 7, the red polygon, downloaded from the Monitoring Trends in Burn
Severity website (http://www.mtbs.gov/data/individualfiredata.html), shows the boundary
GIScience & Remote Sensing 17
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

Figure 6. An illustration of spatial detail gained by modeling and mapping eMODIS NDVI
through time with Landsat 8 bands as drivers. All images have the same extents, adjusted for spatial
resolution. The center coordinates for the images equal approximately 1152331.5W 402440.8N
and include part of the Ruby Mountains, Nevada. The eMODIS NDVI is scaled (100x + 100) to
remove negative values; therefore, a value of 100 on one of the images above would equal a
normally scaled NDVI value of 0. We set our model to allow 5% extrapolation; therefore, values
greater than 200 can occur. (a) Week 1718 eMODIS NDVI predicted (30 m), (b) week 1718
original eMODIS NDVI (250 m), (c) week 27 eMODIS NDVI predicted (30 m), (d) week 27
original eMODIS NDVI (250 m), (e) week 37 eMODIS NDVI predicted (30 m), (f) week 37
original eMODIS NDVI (250 m), (g) week 43 eMODIS NDVI predicted (30 m), (h) week 37
original eMODIS NDVI (250 m).
18 S.P. Boyte et al.
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

Figure 7. An illustration of fire effects on vegetation greenness as calculated by NDVI and spatial
differences of the predicted (30 m) and original (250 m) eMODIS NDVI. The red polygon,
downloaded from the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity website (http://www.mtbs.gov/data/
individualfiredata.html), shows the fire boundary for the Black Fire in eastern Nevada. The fire
date was 1 July 2013, at the start of week 27s compositing period (see Table 1). Dark areas on a
prefire Google Earth image from September 2010 represent trees. Many previous dark areas inside
the polygon are void of trees and other vegetation and appear lighter in the post fire, August 2014,
Google Earth image. The circles show an example of vegetation change at different spatial scales.
All images have the same extents, adjusted for spatial resolution. Center coordinates for the images
equal approximately 1141152.33W 38 5012.87N. (a) Week 27 eMODIS NDVI predicted (30
m), (b) week 27 eMODIS NDVI original (250 m), (c) week 37 eMODIS NDVI predicted (30 m), (d)
week 37 eMODIS NDVI original (250 m), (e) Google Earth image September 2010, (f) Google
Earth image August 2014.
GIScience & Remote Sensing 19

of the Black Fire that occurred in eastern Nevada on 1 July 2013. Figure 7 compares
prefire images (Figure 7(a,b)) with postfire images (Figure 7(c,d)) at different resolutions.
This comparison shows changes in NDVI that typically occurred after fire in vegetated
areas. The Google Earth images (Figure 7(e,f)) provided a point of reference for pre- and
postfire dynamics. Low NDVI values, representing low or no vegetation greenness,
dominated much of the postfire images, as expected, but the 30-m predicted image offered
more spatial detail about fire severity and better identified potentially unburned areas. The
circled areas, especially in the center of images Figure 7(c,d), are examples of where the
30-m predictions provided substantially more detail than the 250-m images, illustrating
the fires effects on vegetation.

4. Discussion
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

The regression-tree process developed 30-m synthetic eMODIS NDVI using Landsat and
atmospherically corrected eMODIS NDVI data (Jenkerson, Maiersperger, and Schmidt
2010). This process is unlike the STARFM, the enhanced STARFM, and STAARCH,
which all generate synthetic Landsat images using Landsat and MODIS data (Gao et al.
2006; Tewes et al. 2015; Gao et al. 2015). The regression-tree algorithms included many
terminal nodes (stratified prediction end points) where specific independent variable combi-
nations were applied to optimize predictions (Death and Fabricius 2000). The regression-tree
software looked for a set of independent variables that for each terminal node helped predict
eMODIS NDVI on the target date most accurately. For example, the Landsat 8 blue band is
sensitive to atmospheric effects, and the Landsat scenes that make up the DOY 175 best-pixel
composite likely experienced frequent cloud cover. This would have caused the low usage of
the DOY 175 blue band in stratifying predictions for weeks 17 and 18. During the later weeks
that we downscaled, cloud cover and other atmospheric factors may not have occurred as
frequently and, consequently, the DOY 175 blue band was used by the regression-tree
software much more frequently to stratify rules and slightly less frequently to build prediction
algorithms. Ollinger (2011) notes that the infrared band is the strongest component in the
NDVI formula, accounting for about 60% of the NDVI signature and the red band accounting
for the rest. Therefore, we expect that the NIR and red bands would contribute strongly to the
models predictions of eMODIS NDVI, which they do. Overall, these bands are four of the six
most frequently used Landsat bands in models for DOYs 175 and 250.
To develop robust models, the models were trained on large datasets that represented a
wide range of environmental and ecological conditions across the study area. Model
robustness was manifested by the test data experiencing almost identical accuracy values
to the training data values (Table 3). Since the test data were independent of model
development, the accuracy of the test data suggested that the model would perform well
on unseen data. Week 27 and week 37 predictions experienced the lowest RMSEs and
nRMSEs of the four downscaled weeks when compared to original eMODIS NDVI data
(Figure 5 and Table 5). Their sample point correlation coefficients (r = 0.91) were similar
to their models accuracies and equaled that of weeks 17 and 18 and the downscaled GSN
model that Gu and Wylie (2015a) produced for central Nebraska. This downscaled GSN
model found the best accuracy of growing season MODIS NDVI when the Landsat scenes
that downscaled the MODIS NDVI came from the early, middle, and late growing
seasons. In the current study, week 27 and week 37 occurred immediately after the
dates of the DOY 175 and DOY 250 Landsat composites, which suggests that the nearer
the original eMODIS NDVI dates are to the dates of the Landsat 8 composites, the more
effective the downscaling process.
20 S.P. Boyte et al.

The phenological trends discussed in the visual comparison part of Section 3 reflected
an understanding of the general timing of rangeland vegetation-type greenness in this
geographic area. Vegetation growth peaked during early to late summer, and these peaks
were visible in the week 27 and week 37 images (Figure 6(cf)) and were in relative
contrast with the weeks 17 and 18 (Figure 6(b)) and week 43 (Figure 6(g,h)) images.
Figure 7 demonstrated expected vegetation responses to fire as illustrated by the lower
NDVI values presented in much of the postfire image when contrasted with the prefire
image. In the context of this study, the spatial detail of the downscaled eMODIS NDVI
was most important because areas of remaining vegetation could be distinguished in the
30-m prediction that were not distinguishable in the original 250-m eMODIS NDVI
image. This increased spatial detail provides more information to the user.
Validation of the sagebrush ecosystem mapping models indicated improvement in the
annual herbaceous model (Table 4) when weeks 17 and 18 and week 27 downscaled
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

eMODIS NDVI images were included as variables, and this corresponds with expecta-
tions. Annual herbaceous growth would likely have been active in the central Great Basin
for most of the time during and between these two weeks, and the models usage of these
downscaled images was reflected in a modest change in accuracy metrics. In contrast, the
all-sage ecosystem model and the non-sage shrub ecosystem model experienced degrada-
tion when downscaled images from weeks 17 and 18 and week 27 were included. Active
shrub growth during these periods likely was minimal, especially during weeks 17 and 18,
and at higher elevations even after weeks 17 and 18. When the week 43 downscaled
image was added to the non-sage shrub model and used along with the weeks 17 and 18
image, the effect on the model was negligible. Inclusion of weeks 17 and 18 and week 27
images improved RMSE values for all sagebrush ecosystem models cross-validation
statistics but had a negligible effect on their R2 values. Any of the sagebrush ecosystem
models that included all four downscaled dates experienced reduced accuracy metrics,
especially when considering cross-validation statistics. What this study could not answer
definitively was whether the downscaled eMODIS NDVI could improve the sagebrush
ecosystem models appreciably. One substantial caveat must be acknowledged when
considering this analysis; Landsat best-pixel composites from 2014 were unavailable for
model development and analysis, so 2013 Landsat best-pixel composites were used to
downscale 2013 eMODIS NDVI datasets. These downscaled 2013 eMODIS NDVI were
ingested into the 2014 sagebrush ecosystem models. Using downscaled data from the
same year as the sagebrush ecosystem models may have improved mapping accuracies.
The same weather patterns, disturbances, and management decisions that affected the
sagebrush ecosystem models would have affected the downscaled eMODIS NDVI inputs.

5. Conclusion
This study demonstrated that regression-tree modeling software can be used to downscale
250-m eMODIS NDVI data using 30-m Landsat 8 OLI data relatively easily and
effectively. The integration of data into regression-tree modeling software from these
two satellites exploited different characteristics of each and helped to mitigate each
satellites limitations. This facilitated a better understanding of seasonal rangeland
dynamics in the central Great Basin by downscaling images with atmospheric corrections,
greater spatial resolution that improved image detail, and enhanced temporal resolution
that allowed the analysis of short-lived plants with rapidly changing phenologies. The
result of this modeling and mapping process also highlighted fire effects on rangelands,
providing detail that was unattainable using data from only one sensor. For future studies,
GIScience & Remote Sensing 21

we identified one potential residual benefit to the modeling process demonstrated in this
study; we think it is possible to create 30-m maps of atmospherically corrected synthetic
eMODIS NDVI, driven by Landsat inputs, for any 7-day period from 1982 (the launch of
Landsat 4) to the present. This effort would require testing a multiple-year, historical
regression-tree model built to emulate historical environmental conditions. The model
would create parameters and algorithms that could be applied to the mapping application
along with Landsat data that predate the launch of MODIS. This process would produce
30-m eMODIS NDVI predictions that could match with previous dates of field data and/
or coincide with important phenology dates. This effort would allow telling a more
complete story of rangeland seasonal dynamics in the central Great Basin.

Acknowledgments
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

Thanks are due to many people for the development of this manuscript. The authors thank Jennifer
Rover, Thomas Adamson, and the anonymous journal reviewers for constructive recommendations
that made this manuscript better; the US Geological Survey sagebrush ecosystem team for sharing
data and for testing the downscaled models mapping outputs by incorporating them into the
sagebrush ecosystem model; and Kurtis Nelson for providing the Landsat 8 composited tiles.

Disclosure statement
The authors declare no conflicting interests. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for
descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US government.

Funding
The US Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey Land Change Science
program funded this work.

ORCID
Stephen P. Boyte http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5462-3225
Bruce K. Wylie http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7374-1083
Matthew B. Rigge http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4471-8009
Devendra Dahal http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9594-1249

References
Atkinson, P. M. 2013. Downscaling in Remote Sensing. International Journal of Applied Earth
Observation and Geoinformation 22 (1): 106114. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2012.04.012.
Balch, J. K., B. A. Bradley, C. M. DAntonio, and J. Gmez-Dans. 2013. Introduced Annual Grass
Increases Regional Fire Activity across the Arid Western USA (19802009). Global Change
Biology 19 (1): 173183. doi:10.1111/gcb.12046.
Boyte, S. P., B. K. Wylie, and D. J. Major. 2016. Cheatgrass Percent Cover Change: Comparing
Recent Estimates to Climate Change - Driven Predictions in the Northern Great Basin.
Rangeland Ecology and Management 69 (4): 265279. doi:10.1016/j.rama.2016.03.002.
Boyte, S. P., B. K. Wylie, D. J. Major, and J. F. Brown. 2015. The Integration of Geophysical and
Enhanced Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Normalized Difference Vegetation
Index Data into a Rule-Based, Piecewise Regression-Tree Model to Estimate Cheatgrass
Beginning of Spring Growth. International Journal of Digital Earth 8 (2): 118132.
doi:10.1080/17538947.2013.860196.
22 S.P. Boyte et al.

Boyte, S. P., B. K. Wylie, M. B. Rigge, and D. Dahal. 2017. Estimating Downscaled eMODIS
NDVI Using Landsat 8 in the Central Great Basin Shrub Steppe. U.S. Geological Survey Data
Release. doi:10.5066/F7R20ZVX.
Bradley, B. A., and J. F. Mustard. 2005. Identifying Land Cover Variability Distinct from Land
Cover Change: Cheatgrass in the Great Basin. Remote Sensing of Environment 94 (2): 204
213. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2004.08.016.
Bradley, B. A., and J. F. Mustard. 2006. Characterizing the Landscape Dynamics of an Invasive
Plant and Risk of Invasion Using Remote Sensing. Ecological Applications 16 (3): 11321147.
doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1132:CTLDOA]2.0.CO;2.
Brown, J. F., D. M. Howard, B. K. Wylie, A. Frieze, L. Ji, and C. Gacke. 2015. Application-Ready
Expedited MODIS Data for Operational Land Surface Monitoring of Vegetation Condition.
Remote Sensing 7 (12): 1622616240. doi:10.3390/rs71215825.
Chang, N. B., K. Bai, and C. F. Chen. 2017. Integrating Multisensor Satellite Data Merging and
Image Reconstruction in Support of Machine Learning for Better Water Quality Management.
Journal of Environmental Management 201: 227240. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.045.
Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 2009. North American Terrestrial Ecoregions Level
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

III. Montreal: Commission for Environmental Cooperation.


Death, G., and K. E. Fabricius. 2000. Classification and Regression Trees: A Powerful yet Simple
Technique for Ecological Data Analysis. Ecology 81 (11): 31783192. doi:10.1890/0012-9658
(2000)081[3178:Cartap]2.0.Co;2.
French, N. H. F., L. L. Bourgeau-Chavez, M. J. Falkowski, S. J. Goetz, L. K. Jenkins, P. Camill III,
C. S. Roesler, and D. G. Brown. 2013. Remote Sensing for Mapping and Modeling of Land-
Based Carbon Flux and Storage. In Land Use and the Carbon Cycle, edited by D. G. Brown,
D. T. Robinson, N. H. F. French, and B. C. Reed, 95143. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gao, F., T. Hilker, X. L. Zhu, M. C. Anderson, J. G. Masek, P. J. Wang, and Y. Yang. 2015. Fusing
Landsat and MODIS Data for Vegetation Monitoring. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Magazine 3 (3): 4760. doi:10.1109/Mgrs.2015.2434351.
Gao, F., J. Masek, M. Schwaller, and F. Hall. 2006. On the Blending of the Landsat and MODIS
Surface Reflectance: Predicting Daily Landsat Surface Reflectance. IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing 44 (8): 22072218. doi:10.1109/Tgrs.2006.872081.
Gu, Y., D. M. Howard, B. K. Wylie, and L. Zhang. 2012. Mapping Carbon Flux Uncertainty and
Selecting Optimal Locations for Future Flux Towers in the Great Plains. Landscape Ecology
27 (3): 319326. doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9699-7.
Gu, Y., and B. K. Wylie. 2015a. Developing a 30-M Grassland Productivity Estimation Map for
Central Nebraska Using 250-M MODIS and 30-M Landsat-8 Observations. Remote Sensing of
Environment 171: 291298. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2015.10.018.
Gu, Y., and B. K. Wylie. 2015b. Downscaling 250-M MODIS Growing Season NDVI Based on
Multiple-Date Landsat Images and Data Mining Approaches. Remote Sensing 7. doi:10.3390/
rs70403489.
Gu, Y., B. K. Wylie, S. P. Boyte, J. Picotte, D. M. Howard, K. Smith, and K. J. Nelson. 2016. An
Optimal Sample Data Usage Strategy to Minimize Overfitting and Underfitting Effects in
Regression Tree Models Based on Remotely-Sensed Data. Remote Sensing 8: 943.
doi:10.3390/rs8110943.
Homer, C. G., C. L. Aldridge, D. K. Meyer, and S. J. Schell. 2012. Multi-Scale Remote Sensing
Sagebrush Characterization with Regression Trees over Wyoming, USA: Laying a Foundation
for Monitoring. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 14
(1): 233244. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2011.09.012.
Hwang, T., C. H. Song, P. V. Bolstad, and L. E. Band. 2011. Downscaling Real-Time
Vegetation Dynamics by Fusing Multi-Temporal MODIS and Landsat NDVI in
Topographically Complex Terrain. Remote Sensing of Environment 115 (10): 24992512.
doi:10.1016/j.rse.2011.05.010.
Jenkerson, C. B., T. K. Maiersperger, and G. L. Schmidt. 2010. eMODISA User-Friendly Data
Source. In U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1055. U.S. Department of Interior:
Reston, VA.
Jensen, J. R. 2005. Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective.
Prentice-Hall Series in Geographic Information Sciences. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
GIScience & Remote Sensing 23

Ke, Y., J. Im, J. Lee, H. Gong, and Y. Ryu. 2015. Characteristics of Landsat 8 OLI-derived NDVI
by Comparison with Multiple Satellite Sensors and In-Situ Observations. Remote Sensing of
Environment 164: 298313. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2015.04.004.
Kennedy, R. E., S. Andrfout, W. B. Cohen, C. Gmez, P. Griffiths, M. Hais, S. P. Healey, et al.
2014. Bringing an Ecological View of Change to Landsat-Based Remote Sensing. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment 12 (6): 339346. doi:10.1890/130066.
Kennedy, R. E., P. A. Townsend, J. E. Gross, W. B. Cohen, P. Bolstad, Y. Q. Wang, and P. Adams.
2009. Remote Sensing Change Detection Tools for Natural Resource Managers: Understanding
Concepts and Tradeoffs in the Design of Landscape Monitoring Projects. Remote Sensing of
Environment 113 (7): 13821396. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2008.07.018.
Kokaly, R. F. 2011. DESIDetection of Early-Season Invasives (Software-Installation Manual and
Users Guide Version 1.0). In U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1302. U.S.
Department of Interior: Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1302.
Lloyd, C. D. 2014. Exploring Spatial Scale in Geography, Exploring Spatial Scale in Geography.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Mack, R. N., and D. A. Pyke. 1984. The Demography of Bromus Tectorum: The Role of
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

Microclimate, Grazing and Disease. The Journal of Ecology 72 (3): 731748. doi:10.2307/
2259528.
Maynard, J. J., J. W. Karl, and D. M. Browning. 2016. Effect of Spatial Image Support in Detecting
Long-Term Vegetation Change from Satellite Time-Series. Landscape Ecology 31 (9): 2045
2062. doi:10.1007/s10980-016-0381-y.
The National Land Cover Database. 2011. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. http://
www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2001.php.
Nelson, K. J., and D. Steinwand. 2015. A Landsat Data Tiling and Compositing Approach
Optimized for Change Detection in the Conterminous United States. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 81 (7): 573586. doi:10.14358/PERS.81.7.573.
Ollinger, S. V. 2011. Sources of Variability in Canopy Reflectance and the Convergent Properties
of Plants. New Phytologist 189 (2): 375394. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03536.x.
Pohl, C., and J. van Genderen. 2014. Remote Sensing Image Fusion: An Update in the Context of
Digital Earth. International Journal of Digital Earth 7 (2): 158172. doi:10.1080/
17538947.2013.869266.
Quinlan, J.R. 2008. An overview of cubist: RuleQuest Research Web page, last accessed September
22, 2017, at http://www.rulequest.com/cubist-win.html.
Roy, D. P., P. Lewis, C. B. Schaaf, S. Devadiga, and L. Boschetti. 2006. The Global Impact of
Clouds on the Production of MODIS Bidirectional Reflectance Model-Based Composites for
Terrestrial Monitoring. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 3 (4): 452456.
doi:10.1109/LGRS.2006.875433.
RuleQuest. 2008. RuleQuest Pty Ltd. https://www.rulequest.com/cubist-info.html.
Shettigara, V. K. 1992. A Generalized Component Substitution Technique for Spatial Enhancement
of Multispectral Images Using a Higher Resolution Data Set. Photogrammetric Engineering
and Remote Sensing 58 (5): 561567.
Swets, D. L., B. C. Reed, J. D. Rowland, and S. E. Marko. 2000. A Weighted Least-Squares
Approach to Temporal NDVI Smoothing. In Proceedings of the 1999 ASPRS Annual
Conference, from Image to Information, 526536. Portland, OR: American Society for
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.
Tewes, A., F. Thonfeld, M. Schmidt, R. J. Oomen, X. Zhu, O. Dubovyk, G. Menz, and J.
Schellberg. 2015. Using RapidEye and MODIS Data Fusion to Monitor Vegetation
Dynamics in Semi-Arid Rangelands in South Africa. Remote Sensing 7 (6): 65106534.
doi:10.3390/rs70606510.
Walker, J. J., K. M. de Beurs, R. H. Wynne, and F. Gao. 2012. Evaluation of Landsat and MODIS
Data Fusion Products for Analysis of Dryland Forest Phenology. Remote Sensing of
Environment 117: 381393. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.014.
Wang, Q. M., G. A. Blackburn, A. O. Onojeghuo, J. Dash, L. Q. Zhou, Y. H. Zhang, and P. M.
Atkinson. 2017. Fusion of Landsat 8 OLI and Sentinel-2 MSI Data. IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing 55 (7): 38853899. doi:10.1109/Tgrs.2017.2683444.
Wiken, E., J. N. Francisco, and G. E. Griffith. 2011. North American Terrestrial EcoregionsLevel
III. Montreal: Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
24 S.P. Boyte et al.

Woodcock, C. E., and A. H. Strahler. 1987. The Factor of Scale in Remote Sensing. Remote
Sensing of Environment 21 (3): 311332. doi:10.1016/0034-4257(87)90015-0.
Wulder, M. A., J. G. Masek, W. B. Cohen, T. R. Loveland, and C. E. Woodcock. 2012. Opening
the Archive: How Free Data Has Enabled the Science and Monitoring Promise of Landsat.
Remote Sensing of Environment 122: 210. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2012.01.010.
Wylie, B. K., E. A. Fosnight, T. G. Gilmanov, A. B. Frank, J. A. Morgan, M. R. Haferkamp, and T.
P. Meyers. 2007. Adaptive Data-Driven Models for Estimating Carbon Fluxes in the Northern
Great Plains. Remote Sensing of Environment 106 (4): 399413. doi:10.1016/j.
rse.2006.09.017.
Wylie, B. K., L. Zhang, N. Bliss, L. Ji, L. L. Tieszen, and W. M. Jolly. 2008. Integrating Modelling
and Remote Sensing to Identify Ecosystem Performance Anomalies in the Boreal Forest, Yukon
River Basin, Alaska. International Journal of Digital Earth 1 (2): 196220. doi:10.1080/
17538940802038366.
Xian, G., C. G. Homer, M. B. Rigge, H. Shi, and D. Meyer. 2015. Characterization of Shrubland
Ecosystem Components as Continuous Fields in the Northwest United States. Remote Sensing
of Environment 168: 286300. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2015.07.014.
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 09:09 30 September 2017

Zhang, J. 2010. Multi-Source Remote Sensing Data Fusion: Status and Trends. International
Journal of Image and Data Fusion 1 (1): 524. doi:10.1080/19479830903561035.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai