Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 235

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of MODIS LAI/FPAR Product Collection 6. Part 1: Consistency and Improvements

Open access
Yan, Kai, Park, Taejin, Yan, Guangjian, Chen, Chi, Yang, Bin, Liu, Zhao, Nemani, Ramakrishna, Knyazikhin, Yuri, Myneni, Ranga·2016·Remote Sensing

Abstract

As the latest version of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Leaf Area Index (LAI) and Fraction of Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FPAR) products, Collection 6 (C6) has been distributed since August 2015. This collection is evaluated in this two-part series with the goal of assessing product accuracy, uncertainty and consistency with the previous version. In this first paper, we compare C6 (MOD15A2H) with Collection 5 (C5) to check for consistency and discuss the scale effects associated with changing spatial resolution between the two collections and benefits from improvements to algorithm inputs. Compared with C5, C6 benefits from two improved inputs: (1) L2G–lite surface reflectance at 500 m resolution in place of reflectance at 1 km resolution; and (2) new multi-year land-cover product at 500 m resolution in place of the 1 km static land-cover product. Global and seasonal comparison between C5 and C6 indicates good continuity and consistency for all biome types. Moreover, inter-annual LAI anomalies at the regional scale from C5 and C6 agree well. The proportion of main radiative transfer algorithm retrievals in C6 increased slightly in most biome types, notably including a 17% improvement in evergreen broadleaf forests. With same biome input, the mean RMSE of LAI and FPAR between C5 and C6 at global scale are 0.29 and 0.091, respectively, but biome type disagreement worsens the consistency (LAI: 0.39, FPAR: 0.102). By quantifying the impact of input changes, we find that the improvements of both land-cover and reflectance products improve LAI/FPAR products. Moreover, we find that spatial scale effects due to a resolution change from 1 km to 500 m do not cause any significant differences.

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 · 10.3390/rs8050359

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 235

Metadata

Authors
Yan, K., Park, T., Yan, G., Chen, C., Yang, B., Liu, Z., Nemani, R., Knyazikhin, Y., & Myneni, R.
Venue
Remote Sensing
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2016-04-26
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
359
ISSN
2072-4292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2345175558
Cited by
235
References
0
FWCI
16.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Evaluation of MODIS LAI/FPAR Product Collection 6. Part 1: Consistency and Improvements. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/rs8050359
The paper
Yan, K., Park, T., Yan, G., Chen, C., Yang, B., Liu, Z., Nemani, R., Knyazikhin, Y., & Myneni, R. (2016). Evaluation of MODIS LAI/FPAR Product Collection 6. Part 1: Consistency and Improvements. Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8050359

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.