Intercomparison and evaluation of spring phenology products using National Phenology Network and AmeriFlux observations in the contiguous United States

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.04.009Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Six major spring phenology products were firstly intercompared against each other.

  • Green-up onset validation by National Phenology Network and AmeriFlux observations.

  • MCD12Q2 and CMGLSP are preferred for short and long term applications.

Abstract

Many remote sensing based spring phenology products have been developed to monitor and study vegetation phenology at regional and global scales. It is important to understand how these products perform relative to each other and to ground observations. In this study, we extracted spring green-up onset dates (GUD) over the contiguous United States (CONUS) from six major land surface phenology (LSP) products: (1) Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Land Cover Dynamics Phenology (MCD12Q2); (2) Vegetation Index and Phenology Multi-sensor Phenology (VIPPHENEVI2); (3) Global Long-Term Climate Modeling Grid Land Surface Phenology (CMGLSP); (4 and 5) North American Carbon Program (NACP) Phenology (MOD09Q1PEVI and MOD15PHN); and (6) USGS/EROS advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) phenology (AVHRRP). We characterized and compared the GUD data in these LSP products, and evaluated their accuracy using ground-based phenology observations [i.e., human observations of first leaf and sensor readings of gross primary productivity (GPP)] from the USA National Phenology Network (USA-NPN) and AmeriFlux. The results revealed the consistencies and discrepancies of GUD estimates among LSP products. Intercomparison of the six products indicated that the root mean square error (RMSE) of these products range from 17.8 days to 31.5 days, whereas AVHRRP GUD has the lowest correlation and largest RMSE (∼30 days) relative to other products. When compared to ground observations, GUD estimates in six LSP products generally have RMSE values of ∼20 days and significant correlations (p < 0.001). For the products (MCD12Q2, AVHRRP, MOD09Q1PEVI, and MOD15PHN) available for comparisons in the short-term period (from 2001–2007), AVHRRP GUD presented relatively weaker correlations and a lower index of agreement (IOA), however, MCD12Q2 GUD showed overall slightly better consistencies with ground observations. In the two long-term products (CMGLSP and VIPPHENEVI2 from 1982–2013), CMGLSP exhibited stronger correlations, lower RMSE, and higher IOA with ground observations of the first leaf dates than VIPPHENEVI2 did. To our knowledge, our study provides the first comprehensive evaluation of phenology products using two independent ground-based datasets.

Introduction

Plant phenology is widely used as an independent measure and powerful indicator of how ecosystems are responding to climate change (Badeck et al., 2004, Friedl et al., 2006, Parmesan, 2006, White et al., 2009, Ma et al., 2013). It is linked to primary productivity, crop yields, insect emergence, and bird migration (Parmesan, 2006, Rosenzweig et al., 2007, Ault et al., 2015). Shifts in the timing of spring arrival can change the time of seeding in agricultural systems (Knudson, 2012), disrupt ecological interactions between plants and animals (Burkle et al., 2013, Kellermann et al., 2015), and contribute to changes in species distributions (Chuine and Beaubien, 2001). Earlier spring onset, in particular, can alter the surface energy balance, accelerate transpiration (Wilson and Baldocchi, 2001, Piao et al., 2015), enhance mid-summer droughts, and increase the incidence of severe wildfires (White and Nemani, 2003, Angert et al., 2005, Westerling et al., 2006).

Land surface phenology (LSP), the study of the timing of recurring seasonal pattern of variation in vegetated land surfaces observed from satellite sensors, has been widely used in detecting and understanding climate changes and ecosystem dynamics (Gonsamo et al., 2012, Friedl et al., 2006, Parmesan, 2006). Various studies have tended to find that spring phenology has occurred earlier in recent decades, especially across the Northern Hemisphere, as a result of rising global temperatures (McCabe et al., 2012, Allstadt et al., 2015). However, not all documented trends in spring phenology have been consistent, whether detected by satellite-based sensors, ground-based sensors, or human observations (Menzel et al., 2006, Reed, 2006, Piao et al., 2007, White et al., 2009). Because the differences in phenological trends influence the forecasts of climate change, crop development, and ecological dynamics, it is critical to understand the nature of the inconsistencies.

Over the last decades, a number of LSP products have been developed from satellite data, which have different spatial and temporal characteristics. The products include (Table 1): (1) the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Land Cover Dynamics Product (MCD12Q2) (Zhang et al., 2006a, Zhang et al., 2006b, Ganguly et al., 2010); (2) Global Vegetation Index and Phenology Multi-sensor Phenology (VIPPHENEVI2) (White et al., 2009, Didan, 2010, Didan et al., 2016), which uses data from the advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) and MODIS data based on daily two-band enhanced vegetation index (EVI2); (3) Global Long-Term Climate Modeling Grid Land Surface Phenology (CMGLSP) (Zhang et al., 2014, Zhang, 2015); (4 and 5) the MODIS-based products (MOD09Q1PEVI and MOD15PHN) in support of the North American Carbon Program (NACP), which were produced over the contiguous United States (CONUS) using MOD09 reflectance and MOD15 leaf area index (LAI), respectively (Morisette et al., 2009, Tan et al., 2008, Tan et al., 2011); and (6) the United States Geological Survey/Earth Resources Observation Systems (USGS/EROS) Phenology Product (AVHRRP) over the CONUS (Reed et al., 1994). In addition, agencies and researchers have developed many other specialized and regional products (Verstraete et al., 2008, Hargrove et al., 2009, Dash et al., 2010, Lacaze et al., 2011, Gonsamo and Chen, 2016).

Current LSP products could contain considerable discrepancies and uncertainties because there are no standardized methods and criteria to quantify the LSP metrics (de Beurs and Henebry, 2010, White et al., 2009). After comparing 10 methods for estimating green-up onset dates (GUD) from the same satellite data source, White et al. (2009) found that estimates differed by more than one month depending on the method used. Unfortunately, we know of no studies that have compared and validated a range of LSP products, particularly which use different satellite data sources, vegetation indices, and analytical methods to estimate spring phenology. Thus, direct validation and intercomparison of existing LSP products are essential for further applications that rely on accurate estimates of phenological metrics. These applications include climate models, agricultural models, and estimates of shifts in species performance and distribution.

This study compares GUD in the six major LSP products (Table 1) that are widely used and regularly updated by their developers. The main goals are to answer several crucial questions as follows: (1) what are the consistencies and discrepancies of GUD estimates across the products? (2) which product provides the best consistency when compared to ground-based observations? (3) what is the temporal and spatial retrieval efficiency in each product?

Section snippets

Methods

Our study focused on the intercomparison and validation of GUD in LSP products across the CONUS. It was due to the fact that the well-organized ground reference measures were available, which were spatially distributed across the entire CONUS and included a number of ecosystems and land cover types. These data allowed us to compare the performance of land surface phenology products across a range of conditions.

Spatial consistency of green-up onset dates among LSP products

Fig. 2 shows the geographical distributions of GUD (day-of-year, DOY) averaged for 2001–2007 from each LSP product. All products showed relatively early GUD in southern locations and later GUD in northern locations, as expected. In the eastern CONUS, all products showed comparable GUD (∼100 DOY) (Fig. 2).

The LSP products differed substantially in their estimates of GUD. MCD12Q2 GUD was generally earlier (Fig. 2a) while CMGLSP GUD was later (Fig. 2d). The products also provided spatially

Evaluating LSP GUD estimates using ground observations

Reconciling ground and satellite-based phenological observations is very challenging because of the mismatch in scales. Ground observations often describe phenological events in individual trees or stands, whereas satellites capture landscape-level phenology (Zhang and Goldberg, 2011, Ganguly et al., 2010, Liang and Schwartz, 2009, Morisette et al., 2009, Schwartz and Hanes, 2009, White et al., 2009, Zhang et al., 2006a, Zhang et al., 2006b). Thus, the point observations of the first leaf dates

Conclusions

Validation of LSP products has been highly expected to quantify the quality or accuracy (Delbart et al., 2015, White et al., 2009, Zhang et al., 2006a, Zhang et al., 2006b, Liang et al., 2011). However, it is currently challenging because in-situ data that spatially match satellite footprints are barely available. On the other hand, widely acceptable criteria to define the LSP GUD were not available. Thus, a high quality LSP product should be self-consistent spatially and temporally.

In this

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Jake Weltzin and Theresa Crimmins (USA National Phenology Network) for their useful comments and the following data support: Lilac/honeysuckle data were provided by the USA National Phenology Network, Joseph M. Caprio, Mark D. Schwartz, and all contributors to past U.S. Dept. of Agriculture regional phenology projects; MCD12Q2 from Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC); Long Term Land Surface Phenology Record from //bruin.sdstate.edu/ftp/XYZ/AVHRR_EVI2/in

References (78)

  • G. Hmimina et al.

    Evaluation of the potential of MODIS satellite data to predict vegetation phenology in different biomes: An investigation using ground-based NDVI measurements

    Remote Sens. Environ.

    (2013)
  • K. Hufkens et al.

    Linking near-surface and satellite remote sensing measurements of deciduous broadleaf forest phenology

    Remote Sens. Environ.

    (2012)
  • L.A. Liang et al.

    Validating satellite phenology through intensive ground observation and landscape scaling in a mixed seasonal forest

    Remote Sens. Environ.

    (2011)
  • Y. Liu et al.

    Improved modeling of land surface phenology using MODIS land surface reflectance and temperature at evergreen needleleaf forests of central North America

    Remote Sens. Environ.

    (2016)
  • X. Ma et al.

    Spatial patterns and temporal dynamics in savanna vegetation phenology across the North Australian Tropical Transect

    Remote Sens. Environ.

    (2013)
  • E.K. Melaas et al.

    Using FLUXNET data to improve models of springtime vegetation activity onset in forest ecosystems

    Agric. For. Meteorol.

    (2013)
  • Y. Ryu et al.

    Monitoring multi-layer canopy spring phenology of temperate deciduous and evergreen forests using low-cost spectral sensors

    Remote Sens. Environ.

    (2014)
  • M.M. Verstraete et al.

    An automatic procedure to identify key vegetation phenology events using the JRC-FAPAR products

    Adv. Space Res.

    (2008)
  • C. Wu et al.

    Modeling growing season phenology in North American forests using seasonal mean vegetation indices from MODIS

    Remote Sens. Environ.

    (2014)
  • C. Wu et al.

    Land surface phenology of China’s temperate ecosystems over 1999–2013: spatial-temporal patterns, interaction effects, covariation with climate and implications for productivity

    Agric. For. Meteorol.

    (2016)
  • X. Zhang

    Reconstruction of a complete global time series of daily vegetation index trajectory from long-term AVHRR data

    Remote Sens. Environ.

    (2015)
  • X. Zhang et al.

    Monitoring fall foliage coloration dynamics using time-series satellite data

    Remote Sens. Environ.

    (2011)
  • X. Zhang et al.

    Monitoring vegetation phenology using MODIS

    Remote Sens. Environ.

    (2003)
  • Q.Y. Zhang et al.

    Characterization of seasonal variation of forest canopy in a temperate deciduous broadleaf forest, using daily MODIS data

    Remote Sens. Environ.

    (2006)
  • A.J. Allstadt et al.

    Spring plant phenology and false springs in the conterminous US during the 21st century

    Environ. Res. Lett.

    (2015)
  • A. Angert et al.

    Drier summers cancel out the CO2 uptake enhancement induced by warmer springs

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.

    (2005)
  • T.R. Ault et al.

    Trends and natural variability of spring onset in the coterminous United States as evaluated by a new gridded dataset of spring indices

    J. Clim.

    (2015)
  • F.W. Badeck et al.

    Responses of spring phenology to climate change

    New Phytol.

    (2004)
  • D. Baldocchi et al.

    FLUXNET: a new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities

    Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.

    (2001)
  • D.D. Baldocchi et al.

    Predicting the onset of net carbon uptake by deciduous forests with soil temperature and climate data: a synthesis of FLUXNET data

    Int. J. Biometeorol.

    (2005)
  • L.A. Burkle et al.

    Plant-pollinator interactions over 120 years: loss of species, co-occurrence, and function

    Science

    (2013)
  • D.S. Chapman et al.

    Phenology predicts the native and invasive range limits of common ragweed

    Global Change Biol.

    (2014)
  • I. Chuine et al.

    Phenology is a major determinant of tree species range

    Ecol. Lett.

    (2001)
  • K.M. de Beurs et al.

    Spatio-temporal statistical methods for modeling land surface phenology

  • E.G. Denny et al.

    Standardized phenology monitoring methods to track plant and animal activity for science and resource management applications

    Int. J. Biometeorol.

    (2014)
  • K. Didan et al.

    Multi-Sensor Vegetation Index and Phenology Earth Science Data Records: Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document and User Guide Version 4.0

    (2016)
  • K. Didan

    Multi-satellite earth science data record for studying global vegetation trends and changes

  • M. Friedl et al.

    Land Surface Phenology. A Community White Paper Requested by NASA

    (2006)
  • K.L. Gerst et al.

    Estimating the onset of spring from a complex phenology database: trade-offs across geographic scales

    Int. J. Biometeorol.

    (2015)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text