[go: up one dir, main page]

 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (2)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = MODIS_DT_Fire

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
17 pages, 5426 KiB  
Article
A Wildfire Detection Algorithm Based on the Dynamic Brightness Temperature Threshold
by Yunhong Ding, Mingyang Wang, Yujia Fu, Lin Zhang and Xianjie Wang
Forests 2023, 14(3), 477; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14030477 - 27 Feb 2023
Cited by 13 | Viewed by 2370
Abstract
Satellite remote sensing plays an important role in wildfire detection. Methods using the brightness and temperature difference of remote sensing images to determine if a wildfire has occurred are one of the main research directions of forest fire monitoring. However, common wildfire detection [...] Read more.
Satellite remote sensing plays an important role in wildfire detection. Methods using the brightness and temperature difference of remote sensing images to determine if a wildfire has occurred are one of the main research directions of forest fire monitoring. However, common wildfire detection algorithms are mainly based on a fixed brightness temperature threshold to distinguish wildfire pixels and non-wildfire pixels, which reduces the applicability of the algorithm in different space–time regions. This paper presents an adaptive wildfire detection algorithm, DBTDW, based on a dynamic brightness temperature threshold. First, a regression dataset, MODIS_DT_Fire, was constructed based on moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometry (MODIS) to determine the wildfire brightness temperature threshold. Then, based on the meteorological information, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) information, and elevation information provided by the dataset, the DBTDW algorithm was used to calculate and obtain the minimum brightness temperature threshold of the burning area by using the Planck algorithm and Otsu algorithm. Finally, six regression models were trained to establish the correlation between factors and the dynamic brightness temperature threshold of wildfire. The root-mean-square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) were used to evaluate the regression performance. The results show that under the XGBoost model, the DBTDW algorithm has the best prediction effect on the dynamic brightness temperature threshold of wildfire (leave-one-out method: RMSE/MAE = 0.0730). Compared with the method based on a fixed brightness temperature threshold, the method proposed in this paper to adaptively determine the brightness temperature threshold of wildfire has higher universality, which will help improve the effectiveness of satellite remote fire detection. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Natural Hazards and Risk Management)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Overall flowchart of adaptive wildfire detection algorithm for dynamic brightness temperature threshold. Step 1 is the extraction process of the minimum brightness temperature of ignition point combustion; Step 2 is the extraction and matching process of meteorological, NDVI, altitude, and other features; Step 3 is the process of regression evaluation of the dataset generated in Step 2. Lat: latitude; Lon: longitude; NDVI: normalized differential vegetation index; RR: ridge regression; LR: least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression; SVR: support vector machine regression; RFR: random forest regression; XGR: eXtreme gradient boosting regression; CBR: categorical gradient boosting; RMSE: root-mean-square error; MAE: mean absolute error.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Global distribution of meteorological stations. The green dots represent meteorological stations. The denser the green dots, the more weather stations there are in the area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Global Normalized Vegetation Index (NDVI) (May 2021). The closer the color is to 1.0, the larger the area covered by green vegetation; if the color is closer to 0, this means that the area has little or no vegetation cover.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Distribution of global elevation. In the figure, the black boundary is the contour line of the region, and the white text is the elevation mark of the contour line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>False-color image generated from the MODIS data channel 21/22/31. In <a href="#forests-14-00477-f005" class="html-fig">Figure 5</a>, (<b>a</b>) is a false color image synthesized with 21/22/31 channel primary colors. The bright green area is the fire point, and the blue-purple area is the background area without fire. In the same figure, (<b>b</b>) is a complementary picture synthesized by using channel 21/22/31. The purple area is the fire point and the brown area is the background area without fire.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Grayscale of brightness temperature in channels; the bright white area represents the fire points, and the dark black area represents the unburned background area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The luminance temperature binarization diagram of 21 channels divided by the OTSU algorithm. The white area of the image is the fire and the black area is the unburned background.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Global distribution map of all dynamic brightness temperature threshold sample points in the MODIS_DT_Fire dataset. The red dots are sample points.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The distance between the location of wildfires in the MODIS_DT_Fire dataset and the meteorological station sites. The horizontal dashed line represented by 56.5 in the figure is the average of the distances.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>RMSE/MAE scores when six regression models were trained using the leave-one method.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>RMSE and MAE scores of the six regression models trained in all datasets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Generated feature weight diagram of XGR and CBR. (<b>a</b>) represents the weight values of each feature separately calculated by CBR model and XGR model. (<b>b</b>) represents the sum of weight values obtained by XGR and CBR models weighted 1:1; XGR, eXtreme gradient boosting regression, CBR: categorical gradient boosting.</p>
Full article ">
25 pages, 15774 KiB  
Article
Comparison of Aerosol Optical Depth from MODIS Product Collection 6.1 and AERONET in the Western United States
by Iyasu G. Eibedingil, Thomas E. Gill, R. Scott Van Pelt and Daniel Q. Tong
Remote Sens. 2021, 13(12), 2316; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13122316 - 13 Jun 2021
Cited by 15 | Viewed by 4302
Abstract
Recent observations reveal that dust storms are increasing in the western USA, posing imminent risks to public health, safety, and the economy. Much of the observational evidence has been obtained from ground-based platforms and the visual interpretation of satellite imagery from limited regions. [...] Read more.
Recent observations reveal that dust storms are increasing in the western USA, posing imminent risks to public health, safety, and the economy. Much of the observational evidence has been obtained from ground-based platforms and the visual interpretation of satellite imagery from limited regions. Comprehensive satellite-based observations of long-term aerosol records are still lacking. In an effort to develop such a satellite aerosol dataset, we compared and evaluated the Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) from Deep Blue (DB) and Dark Target (DT) product collection 6.1 with the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) program in the western USA. We examined the seasonal and monthly average number of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Aqua DB AOD retrievals per 0.1 × 0.1 from January 2003 to December 2017 across the region’s different topographic, climatic, and land cover conditions. The number of retrievals in the southwest United States was on average greater than 37 days per 90 days for all seasons except summer. Springtime saw the highest number of AOD retrievals across the southwest, consistent with the peak season for synoptic-scale dust events. The majority of Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas showed the lowest number of retrievals during the monsoon season. The majority of collocating domains of AOD from the Aqua sensor showed a better correlation with AERONET AOD than AOD from Terra, and the correlation coefficients exhibited large regional variability across the study area. The correlation coefficient between the couplings Aqua DB AOD-AERONET AOD and Terra DB AOD-AERONET AOD ranges from 0.1 to 0.94 and 0.001 to 0.94, respectively. In the majority of the sites that exhibited less than a 0.6 correlation coefficient and few matched data points at the nearest single pixel, the correlations gradually improved when the spatial domain increased to a 50 km × 50 km box averaging domain. In general, the majority of the stations revealed significant correlation between MODIS and AERONET AOD at all spatiotemporal aggregating domains, although MODIS generally overestimated AOD compared to AERONET. However, the correlation coefficient in the southwest United States was the lowest and in stations from a higher latitude was the highest. The difference in the brightness of the land surface and the latitudinal differences in the aerosol inputs from the forest fires and solar zenith angles are some of the factors that manifested the latitudinal correlation differences. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Ecological regions of the western United States acquired from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (US Environmental Protection Agency). Black dots represent the AERONET stations. (<b>b</b>) Digital Elevation Model (DEM) map of the western United States extracted from global GTOPO30 model at 30 arc seconds (≈1 km) spatial resolution (USGS). Black and blue dots represent the AERONET stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Seasonal distribution of the number of MODIS DB AOD retrieval per <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mn>0.1</mn> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> × <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mn>0.1</mn> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> averaged from January 2003 to December 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Long-term mean monthly distribution of the number of MODIS DB AOD retrieval per <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mn>0.1</mn> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> × <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mn>0.1</mn> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> averaged from January 2003 to December 2017.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Scatter plots representing the validation of Aqua MODIS DB AOD against AERONET AOD processed at 550 nm of the representative Missoula station: Nearest single pixel in time (<b>a</b>) nearest singel pixel in space, averaged from nearest (<b>b</b>) 9 pixels, and (<b>c</b>) 25 pixels; 30 min averaging domain (<b>d</b>) nearest single pixel in time, averaged from nearest (<b>e</b>) 9 pixels, and (<b>f</b>) 25 pixels; and 3-h averaging domain (<b>g</b>) nearest single pixel in time, averaged from nearest (<b>h</b>) 9 pixels, and (<b>i</b>) 25 pixels. The red line is a regression line. Where R—Pearson correlation coefficient, P—<span class="html-italic">p</span> value, RMSE—root mean square error at 5% significance level, and N—number of matched AOD points. The one-to-one agreement is represented by the dashed line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Pearson correlation coefficient between MODIS DB AOD (Aqua and Terra) and AERONET AOD over 23 stations at different combinations of temporal and spatial averaging domains. The actual of AODs are available in the data at that <a href="https://doi.org/10.17632/9v6pwjzxg6.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.17632/9v6pwjzxg6.1</a> (accessed on 11 June 2021).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Pearson correlation coefficient between spatially aggregated at nearest pixel, 30 km × 30 km box and 50 km × 50 km box Aqua MODIS DB AOD and temporally aggregated at nearest, ±15 min and ±90 min AERONET AOD at 23 AERONET sites across the western United States.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Scatter plots representing the validation of Aqua MODIS DT (land and ocean) AOD against AERONET AOD processed at 550 nm of the representative Missoula station: Nearest single pixel in time (<b>a</b>) nearest single pixel in space, averaged from nearest (<b>b</b>) 9 pixels, and (<b>c</b>) 25 pixels; 30 min averaging domain (<b>d</b>) nearest single pixel in time, averaged from nearest (<b>e</b>) 9 pixels, and (<b>f</b>) 25 pixels; and 3-h averaging domain (<b>g</b>) nearest single pixel in time, averaged from nearest (<b>h</b>) 9 pixels, and (<b>i</b>) 25 pixels. The red line is a regression line. Where R—Pearson correlation coefficient, P—<span class="html-italic">p</span> value, RMSE—root mean square error at 5% significance level, and N—number of matched AOD points.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Pearson correlation coefficient between MODIS (Aqua and Terra) DT AOD (land and ocean) and AERONET AOD over 23 stations at different combinations of temporal and spatial averaging domains.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Pearson correlation coefficients between spatially aggregated at the nearest pixel, 30 km × 30 km box, and 50 km × 50 km box Aqua MODIS DT (Land and Ocean) AOD and temporally aggregated at the nearest ±15 min and ±90 min AERONET AOD at 23 AERONET sites across the western United States.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop