Optical remote sensing indices play an important role in vegetation information extraction and have been widely serving ecology, agriculture and forestry, urban monitoring, and other communities. Remote sensing indices are constructed from individual bands depending on special characteristics to enhance the typical spectral features for the identification or distinction of surface land covers. With the development of quantitative remote sensing, there is a rapid increasing requirement for accurate data processing and modeling. It is well known that the geometry-induced variation observed in surface reflectance is not ignorable, but the situation of uncertainty thereby introduced into these indices still needs further detailed understanding. We adopted the ground multi-angle hyperspectrum, spectral response function (SRF) of Thematic Mapper (TM), Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM+), Operational Land Imager (OLI), Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), and Multi-Spectral Instrument (MSI) optical sensors and simulated their sensor-like spectral reflectance; then, we investigated the potential angle effect uncertainty on optical indices that have been frequently involved in vegetation monitoring and examined the forward/backward effect over both the ground-based level and the actual Landsat TM/ETM+ overlapped region. Our results on the discussed indices and sensors show as following: (1) Identifiable angle effects exist with a more elevated influence than that introduced by band difference among sensors; (2) The absolute difference between forward and backward direction can reach up to −0.03 to 0.1 within bands of the TM/ETM+ overlapped region; (3) The investigation at ground level indicates that there are different variations of angle effect transmitted to each remote sensing index. Regarding cases of crop canopy at various growth phases, most of the discussed indices have more than a 20% relative difference to nadir value except Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) with the magnitude lower than 10%, and less than 16% of Normalized Burn Ratio (NBR). For the case of wax maturity stage, the relative difference to nadir value of Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI), Ratio Vegetation Index (RVI), Char Soil Index (CSI), NBR, Normalized Difference Moisture Index (NDMI), and SWIR2/NIR exceeded 50%, while the values for NBR and NDMI can reach up to 115.8% and 206.7%, respectively; (4) Various schemes of index construction imply different propagation of angle effect uncertainty. The “difference” indices can partially suppress the directional influence, while the “ratio” indices show high potential to amplify the angle effect. This study reveals that the angle-induced uncertainty of these indices is greater than that induced by the spectrum mismatch among sensors, especially under the case of senescence. In addition, based on this work, indices with a suppressed potential of angle effect are recommended for vegetation monitoring or information retrieval to avoid unexpected effects.
[1]
E. Vermote,et al.
Seasonal and inter-annual variation in view angle effects on MODIS vegetation indices at three forest sites
,
2011
.
[2]
Qihao Weng,et al.
Extracting impervious surfaces from medium spatial resolution multispectral and hyperspectral imagery: a comparison
,
2008
.
[3]
W. Ripple,et al.
Assessing wildfire effects with Landsat thematic mapper data
,
1998
.
[4]
Martin J. Wooster,et al.
Testing the potential of multi-spectral remote sensing for retrospectively estimating fire severity in African savannahs
,
2005
.
[5]
A. Huete,et al.
Dependence of NDVI and SAVI on sun/sensor geometry and its effect on fAPAR relationships in Alfalfa
,
1995
.
[6]
Harald van der Werff,et al.
Determination of Carbonate Rock Chemistry Using Laboratory-Based Hyperspectral Imagery
,
2014,
Remote. Sens..
[7]
S. K. McFeeters.
The use of the Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) in the delineation of open water features
,
1996
.
[8]
C. Jordan.
Derivation of leaf-area index from quality of light on the forest floor
,
1969
.
[9]
Thomas C. Vogelmann,et al.
Plant Tissue Optics
,
1993
.
[10]
João Roberto dos Santos,et al.
View-illumination effects on hyperspectral vegetation indices in the Amazonian tropical forest
,
2013,
Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation.
[11]
Hankui K. Zhang,et al.
A general method to normalize Landsat reflectance data to nadir BRDF adjusted reflectance
,
2016
.
[12]
S. Flasse,et al.
An evaluation of different bi-spectral spaces for discriminating burned shrub-savannah
,
2001
.
[13]
Zhao Wan-yu,et al.
Analysis of hyperspectral reflectance characteristics of three main grassland types in Xinjiang
,
2012
.
[14]
J. A. Schell,et al.
Monitoring the Vernal Advancement and Retrogradation (Green Wave Effect) of Natural Vegetation. [Great Plains Corridor]
,
1973
.
[15]
Piers J. Sellers,et al.
Inferring hemispherical reflectance of the earth's surface for global energy budgets from remotely sensed nadir or directional radiance values
,
1985
.
[16]
C. Perry,et al.
Functional equivalence of spectral vegetation indices
,
1984
.
[17]
Joanne C. White,et al.
Evaluation of Landsat-7 SLC-off image products for forest change detection
,
2008
.
[18]
Renfu Lu,et al.
Hyperspectral laser-induced fluorescence imaging for assessing apple fruit quality
,
2007
.
[19]
D. Verbyla,et al.
Evaluation of remotely sensed indices for assessing burn severity in interior Alaska using Landsat TM and ETM
,
2005
.