Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 275

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimation of fuel moisture content from multitemporal analysis of Landsat Thematic Mapper reflectance data: Applications in fire danger assessment

Chuvieco, E., Riaño, D., Aguado, I., Cocero, D.·2002·International Journal of Remote Sensing

Abstract

The objective of this paper was to define indices based on reflectance measurements performed by the Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) sensor for estimating water content of live Mediterranean fuels for fire danger estimation. Seven Landsat TM images were processed and correlated with fuel moisture content (FMC) of several live species of Mediterranean grassland and shrubland. Raw bands were converted to reflectances, and several indices potentially related to water content were calculated from them. Pearson r correlation coefficients and linear regression analysis were computed in order to estimate FMC. Those indices based on the short wave infrared bands (SWIR: 1.4-2.5 w m) and on the contrast between this band and the near-infrared band offered the best estimations. For grassland, the integral of visible and SWIR bands provided the highest correlation, but also raw reflectances and Normalized Difference Vegetation Indices (NDVIs) provide significant r values ( r 2 above 0.8). For shrub species, indices that include SWIR reflectances performed much better than NDVI, because the SWIR band is more sensitive to water absorption, whereas NDVI estimates FMC indirectly, only from the effects of chlorophyll changes due to water variation content and leaf area index. The most significant relations were found with the derivatives of bands 4-5 and 2-3, and again the integral of visible and SWIR bands. Multiple regression analysis provided adjusted r 2 values of 0.84 for grasslands and 0.74 for shrublands. Average errors of 23.45-40% in the estimation of FMC for grasslands were found, depending on which variables were included in the multiple regression. For the FMC estimation of shrub species, errors were lower (from 7.94 to 19.40%), since the range of FMC values was also lower.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01431160110069818

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 275

Metadata

Authors
Chuvieco, E., Riaño, D., Aguado, I., & Cocero, D.
Venue
International Journal of Remote Sensing
Published
2002-01
Volume
23
Issue
11
Pages
2145-2162
ISSN
  • 0143-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5901
OpenAlex
W1990409457
Cited by
275
References
24
FWCI
6.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Estimation of fuel moisture content from multitemporal analysis of Landsat Thematic Mapper reflectance data: Applications in fire danger assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01431160110069818
The paper
Chuvieco, E., Riaño, D., Aguado, I., & Cocero, D. (2002). Estimation of fuel moisture content from multitemporal analysis of Landsat Thematic Mapper reflectance data: Applications in fire danger assessment. International Journal of Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160110069818

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.