Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Qingyuan Zhang

Publications and source records attributed to Qingyuan Zhang.

5 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2020

Evaluating impacts of snow, surface water, soil and vegetation on empirical vegetation and snow indices for the Utqiaġvik tundra ecosystem in Alaska with the LVS3 model

Satellite observations for the Arctic and boreal region may contain information of vegetation, soil, snow, snowmelt, and/or other surface water bodies. We investigated the impacts of vegetation, soil, snow and surface water on empirical vegetation/snow indices on a tundra ecosystem area located around Utqiaġvik (formerly Barrow) of Alaska with the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) images in 2001–2014. Empirical vegetation indices, such as normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), enhanced vegetation index (EVI), the index of near infrared of vegetation (NIRv), and modified EVI (EVI2), have been used to monitor vegetation. Normalized difference snow index (NDSI) has been widely applied to monitor snow. The vegetation cover fraction (VGCF), the soil cover fraction (SOILCF), the snow cover fraction (SNOWCF), the surface water body cover fraction (WaterBodyCF), the fractional absorption of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) by vegetation chlorophyll (fAPARchl), the fractional absorption of PAR by non-chlorophyll components of the vegetation (fAPARnon-chl), and the fractional absorption of PAR by the entire canopy (fAPARcanopy) are retrieved with the MODIS images and a coupled Leaf-Vegetation-Soil-Snow-Surface water body radiative transfer model, LVS3. The vegetation indices (NDVI, EVI, EVI2 and NIRv) differ from VGCF, fAPARchl, fAPARnon-chl, and fAPARcanopy. In addition to vegetation, we find that soil, snow and surface water also have impacts on vegetation indices NDVI, EVI (EVI2), and NIRv. Presence of snow makes lower the observed values of NDVI, EVI2 and NIRv. After snowmelt is gone, the vegetation indices (NDVI, EVI, EVI2 and NIRv) linearly decrease with SOILCF and WaterBodyCF, and WaterBodyCF has stronger impacts on these vegetation indices than SOILCF. The relationship between EVI and snow is complicated. NDSI non-linearly increases with SNOWCF, but linearly increases with sum of SNOWCF and WaterBodyCF (sum = 0.5893 × NDSI +0.4342, R2 = 0.976). NDSI linearly decreases with VGCF, and the relationship between NDSI and SOILCF is complex. Retrievals of VGCF, fAPARchl, fAPARnon-chl and fAPARcanopy with the LVS3 model provide alternatives for vegetation monitoring and ecological modeling.

Qingyuan Zhang↗
NASA NTRS2016

Monitoring Interannual Variation in Global Crop Yield Using Long-Term AVHRR and MODIS Observations

Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data have been extensively applied for crop yield prediction because of their daily temporal resolution and a global coverage. This study investigated global crop yield using daily two band Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI2) derived from AVHRR (1981-1999) and MODIS (2000-2013) observations at a spatial resolution of 0.05deg (approx.5 km). Specifically, EVI2 temporal trajectory of crop growth was simulated using a hybrid piecewise logistic model (HPLM) for individual pixels, which was used to detect crop phenological metrics. The derived crop phenology was then applied to calculate crop greenness defined as EVI2 amplitude and EVI2 integration during annual crop growing seasons, which was further aggregated for croplands in each country, respectively. The interannual variations in EVI2 amplitude and EVI2 integration were combined to correlate to the variation in cereal yield from 1982-2012 for individual countries using a stepwise regression model, respectively. The results show that the confidence level of the established regression models was higher than 90% (P value < 0.1) in most countries in the northern hemisphere although it was relatively poor in the southern hemisphere (mainly in Africa). The error in the yield predication was relatively smaller in America, Europe and East Asia than that in Africa. In the 10 countries with largest cereal production across the world, the prediction error was less than 9% during past three decades. This suggests that crop phenology-controlled greenness from coarse resolution satellite data has the capability of predicting national crop yield across the world, which could provide timely and reliable crop information for global agricultural trade and policymakers.

Crop phenology↗
NASA NTRS2014

Estimation of Crop Gross Primary Production (GPP): Fapar(sub Chl) Versus MOD15A2 FPAR

Photosynthesis (PSN) is a pigment level process in which antenna pigments (predominately chlorophylls) in chloroplasts absorb photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) for the photochemical process. PAR absorbed by foliar non-photosynthetic components is not used for PSN. The fraction of PAR absorbed (fAPAR) by a canopy/vegetation (i.e., fAPAR(sub canopy)) derived from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) images, referred to as MOD15A2 FPAR, has been used to compute absorbed PAR (APAR) for PSN (APARPSN) which is utilized to produce the standard MODIS gross primary production (GPP) product, referred to as MOD17A2 GPP. In this study, the fraction of PAR absorbed by chlorophyll throughout the canopy (fAPAR(sub chl)) was retrieved from MODIS images for three AmeriFlux crop fields in Nebraska. There are few studies in the literature that compare the performance of MOD15A2 FPAR versus fAPAR(sub chl) in GPP estimation. In our study MOD15A2 FPAR and the retrieved fAPAR(sub chl) were compared with field fAPAR(sub canopy) and the fraction of PAR absorbed by green leaves of the vegetation (fAPAR(sub green)). MOD15A2 FPAR overestimated field fAPAR(sub canopy) in spring and in fall, and underestimated field fAPAR(sub canopy) in midsummer whereas fAPAR(sub chl) correctly captured the seasonal phenology. The retrieved fAPAR(sub chl) agreed well with field fAPAR(sub green) at early crop growth stage in June, and was less than field fAPAR(sub green) in late July, August and September. GPP estimates with fAPAR(sub chl) and with MOD15A2 FPAR were compared to tower flux GPP. GPP simulated with fAPAR(sub chl) was corroborated with tower flux GPP. Improvements in crop GPP estimation were achieved by replacing MOD15A2 FPAR with fAPAR(sub chl) which also reduced uncertainties of crop GPP estimates by 1.12-2.37 g C m(sup −2) d(sup −1).

GPM↗