2020
DOI: 10.3390/s20154337
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Data Fusion Modeling Framework for Retrieval of Land Surface Temperature from Landsat-8 and MODIS Data

Abstract: Land surface temperature (LST) is a critical state variable of land surface energy equilibrium and a key indicator of environmental change such as climate change, urban heat island, and freezing-thawing hazard. The high spatial and temporal resolution datasets are urgently needed for a variety of environmental change studies, especially in remote areas with few LST observation stations. MODIS and Landsat satellites have complementary characteristics in terms of spatial and temporal resolution for LST retrieval… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 75 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To verify the sharpened accuracy of the DMS model, the pixel values at the same latitude and longitude as the four-component radiometer erected on the flux tower were selected for comparison. Table 2 shows that the R 2 was 0.961, which was between the LST at 100 m spatial resolution and the measured surface temperature by the CNR4, the RMSE was 0.968 • C, and the MAE was 2.236 • C. The R 2 was 0.975, which was between the LST at 30 m spatial resolution and the measured surface temperature by the CNR4, the RMSE was 0.811 • C, and the MAE was 1.948 • C. The difference in surface temperature before and after sharpening was maintained between 1~2 • C. The correlation coefficients of the two thermal infrared images with different spatial resolutions were consistently above 0.9 [28]. Compared to the 100 m spatial resolution, the LST at 30 m spatial resolution showed improved accuracy.…”
Section: Evaluation Of Dmsmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…To verify the sharpened accuracy of the DMS model, the pixel values at the same latitude and longitude as the four-component radiometer erected on the flux tower were selected for comparison. Table 2 shows that the R 2 was 0.961, which was between the LST at 100 m spatial resolution and the measured surface temperature by the CNR4, the RMSE was 0.968 • C, and the MAE was 2.236 • C. The R 2 was 0.975, which was between the LST at 30 m spatial resolution and the measured surface temperature by the CNR4, the RMSE was 0.811 • C, and the MAE was 1.948 • C. The difference in surface temperature before and after sharpening was maintained between 1~2 • C. The correlation coefficients of the two thermal infrared images with different spatial resolutions were consistently above 0.9 [28]. Compared to the 100 m spatial resolution, the LST at 30 m spatial resolution showed improved accuracy.…”
Section: Evaluation Of Dmsmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Since then, AlexNet has been widely employed in a variety of applications, including natural scene categorization in remote-sensing data. Zhao G et al [23], for example, provided a multi-sensor data-fusion framework for natural scene categorization in which AlexNet was utilized as the classification model to combine information derived from various sensors.…”
Section: Convolutional Neural Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The spatiotemporal fusion technique for LST data offers the opportunity to further understand the SUHI phenomenon [17,18]. In the present review, the spatial and temporal adaptive reflectance fusion model (STARFM) [14], the enhanced STARFM (ESTARFM) method [19], the bilateral filter [9], the spatiotemporal adaptive data fusion algorithm (SADFAT) [20], and the spatiotemporal integrated temperature fusion model (STITFM) [21] in the weight function-based category; the pixel-based multi-spatial resolution adaptive fusion modeling framework (pMSRAFM) [22] in the unmixing-based category; the sparse-representation-based spatiotemporal reflectance fusion model (SPS-FTM) [23] in the learning-based category; and the flexible spatiotemporal data fusion (FSDAF) method [24] in the hybrid category. Although great progress has been made, most of these spatiotemporal fusion methods are unable to accurately capture the spatial details of LSTs, predict abrupt events, and preserve the spatial continuity of LSTs within urban areas simultaneously [25].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%