826 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY VOLUME 39

Derivation and Evaluation of Global 1-km Fractional Vegetation Cover Data for
Land Modeling
XUBIN ZENG, ROBERT E. DICKINSON, ALISON WALKER, AND MUHAMMAD SHAIKH
Institute of Atmospheric Physics, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

RUTH S. DEFRIES
Department of Geography, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, Maryland

JIAGUO QI
Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan

(Manuscript received 3 May 1999, in final form 23 July 1999)

ABSTRACT
Fractional vegetation cover (s y ) is needed in the modeling of the land–atmosphere exchanges of momentum,
energy, water, and trace gases. From global 1-km, 10-day composite Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) data from April 1992 to March 1993, global 1-km s y is derived
based on the annual maximum NDVI value for each pixel in comparison with the NDVI value that corresponds
to 100% vegetation cover for each International Geosphere–Biosphere Program land cover type. This dataset is
pixel dependent but season independent, with the seasonal variation of vegetation greenness in a pixel accounted
for by the leaf area index. The authors’ algorithm is found to be insensitive to the use of a specific land cover
classification. In comparison with an independent dataset derived by DeFries et al. by using a more sophisticated
statistical approach, the current dataset has a similar spatial distribution but systematically smaller s y (particularly
over shrublands and barren land cover). It also gives s y values that overall are consistent with those derived
from higher-resolution aircraft and satellite data over Arizona and field-survey data over Germany.

1. Introduction is a cleanly obtainable remote sensing product for frac-

The land component of climate models represents
many important processes that control the transfers of
water and energy to the atmosphere. Because the ab-
sorption of solar energy is a dominant process, surface
properties (such as the presence of vegetation) that are
related to this absorption must be included in some de-
tail. Hence, the fractional vegetation cover, as first in-
troduced by Deardorff (1978), is an important element
of climate models. In the absence of satellite remote
sensing, its specification from observations has been
problematical. With satellite observations, it should be
a relatively simple parameter to obtain. The variety of
detailed definitions of fractional vegetation employed
by modeling and remote sensing, however, can lead to
a mismatch between what was estimated from remote
sensing and what is used in a model. Developed here
Corresponding author address: Xubin Zeng, Department of At-
mospheric Sciences, The University of Arizona, P.O. Box 210081,
Tucson, AZ 85721-0081.
E-mail: xubin@atmo.arizona.edu
tional vegetation that can be translated directly into us-
age in a climate model without implicitly changing its
definition in the process.
Most land models up to now have used the undoc-
umented and unvalidated estimates for fractional veg-
etation included in the Biosphere–Atmosphere Transfer
Scheme (BATS) (Dickinson 1993). These estimates
originated in the early 1980s and were derived by look-
ing out the window. In addition to maximum values, a
temperature-based seasonal variation was employed in
global model implementations. The first satellite anal-
yses (Gutman and Ignatov 1998) thus have employed
the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
(AVHRR) normalized difference vegetation index
(NDVI) data to estimate seasonally varying fractional
vegetation. Land models also require a leaf area index
(LAI) to determine surface energy fluxes over canopy-
covered surfaces. This LAI can affect how much solar
radiation is reflected and hence can affect NDVI. Al-
though many climate models have included a seasonal
variation of LAI, the limited information available from
the NDVI product precludes deriving seasonal varia-

q 2000 American Meteorological Society

JUNE 2000 ZENG ET AL.
tions of both fractional vegetation and LAI. Hence, Gut-
man and Ignatov (1998) prescribed a fixed value for
LAI. Alternatively, Sellers et al. (1996) and other au-
thors assumed that spatial and seasonal variations of
NDVI all were given by variations of LAI. Any of the
four possible assumptions (i.e., whether fractional veg-
etation and/or LAI vary seasonally or are kept constant)
could be used in a climate model, but we argue that
fixing fractional vegetation and allowing LAI to vary
is a realistic assumption from a modeling viewpoint and
can be supported by current observational data.1 In this
context, fractional vegetation is viewed as being deter-
mined by types of vegetation and long-term edaphic and
climatic controls, whereas LAI, as provided by model
simulations (e.g., Dickinson et al. 1998) or remote sens-
ing (e.g., Myneni et al. 1997), includes all the season-
ality of canopies, ranging from near-zero values in the
more extreme cases of annual or harvested vegetation
to full-canopy values of 5–10. A small mismatch be-
tween models and observations still may occur as a
result of diurnally varying shading because a satellite
would measure a fraction of solar radiation reflected
from nonvegetated surfaces at the time of satellite over-
pass, whereas a model definition of nonvegetated sur-
faces would refer better to conditions averaged over the
day. Validation of fractional vegetation is problematical
because of its requirement for information at the scale
of individual plant elements. DeFries et al. (1999) pre-
viously have addressed this issue through use of the
30-m Landsat Multispectral Scanner (MSS) data.
Because they generally occur on scales smaller than
climate model grids, the fractional vegetated or non-
vegetated surfaces generally will be used as part of the
model parameterization of subgrid-scale heterogeneity.
It can be introduced either in terms of complex surfaces
as in BATS (Dickinson et al 1993) or in terms of a
mosaic of simpler surfaces (Avissar and Pielke 1989;
Koster and Suarez 1992). Either approach may be ap-
propriate in a given situation, depending on the spatial
scale of the heterogeneity in comparison with that of
individual plants. When the required scaling information
is absent (as is generally the case), however, the mosaic
approach may be preferred for climate models because
of its relatively easy implementation.
Section 2 discusses the derivation of global 1-km frac-
tional vegetation cover, and section 3 evaluates this da-
taset using higher-resolution aircraft and satellite data
and field-survey data.
2. Global fractional vegetation cover data
a. Formulation
The normalized difference vegetation index (denoted
as N hereinafter for brevity) is computed as
1
Derivation of season-independent fractional vegetation cover also
was discussed by G. Gutman in an unpublished draft in 1995 (G.
Gutman 1999, personal communication).
827
r2 2 r1
N5 , (1)
r2 1 r1
where r1 is the visible reflectance at 0.58–0.68 mm
(AVHRR channel 1), and r 2 is the near-infrared reflec-
tance at 0.73–1.1 mm (channel 2). The fractional veg-
etation cover s y can be linked to N in at least three
different ways.
Consistent with model practice in representing grid-
box flux as the area-weighted average from vegetated
area and bare soil, a quantity measured by satellite data
(f ) for each pixel can be interpreted as the sum of
contributions from vegetated area (s y ) and bare soil (1
2 s y ) (i.e., the ‘‘linear-mixing’’ assumption):
f 5 f y s y 1 (1 2 s y )f s , (2)
where the subscripts y and s denote values over fully
vegetated area and bare soil, respectively (in this and
all other equations in the paper). Application of this
equation directly to N yields the simplest formulation
for s y :
N 2 Ns
sy 5 . (3)
Ny 2 Ns
Alternatively, (2) could be applied to r1 and r 2 sep-
arately because they are proportional to energy flux.
Then (1) and (2) would give
N 2 Ns
sy 5 , (4)
Ny 2 Ns 1 (1 2 a)(N 2 Ny )
where a is equal to (r1 1 r 2)y /(r1 1 r 2)s . Equation (4)
becomes the same as the linear (3) when a is equal to 1.
Another nonlinear (in N) formulation (Choudhury et
al. 1994; Baret et al. 1995; Wittich 1997) is
1 2
Ny 2 N
b
sy 5 1 2 , (5)
Ny 2 Ns
which becomes (3) when the exponent b is equal to 1.
Although some studies (e.g., Myneni and Williams
1994; Carlson and Ripley 1997) reported a nonlinear
relationship between N and s y , many others [e.g., Wit-
tich (1997); Gutman and Ignatov (1998); and references
therein] found the linear relationship (3) to be adequate.
A more-elaborate mixture model (DeFries et al. 1999)
provides products as an area-weighted (linear) average
for each of the 30 metrics (including N) and derives
continuous fields of vegetation characteristics. For a
specific area when surface data are available, a nonlinear
relationship (4) or (5) or an even more–sophisticated
approach (e.g., Gillies and Carlson 1995; Hall et al.
1997), might be more appropriate. For global applica-
tions, however, it may be difficult to justify anything
more elaborate than the linear relationship (3). Largely
because of a lack of data, it already is difficult to de-
termine N y and N s in (3). In fact, a universal value of
0.52 is adopted for N y and 0.04 for N s in Gutman and
Ignatov (1998). If (4) or (5) were used, it would be even
828 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY VOLUME 39

more difficult to determine the additional parameter a TABLE 1. Pixel numbers [relative to the total pixel number of about
1.3 3 10 8 over land (i.e., categories 1–14 and 16)], Nc, y used in (6),
or b. and the mean fractional vegetation cover for each IGBP land cover.

IGBP land cover Pixels (%) N c, y sy

b. Input data
1. Evergreen needleleaf forests 5.03 0.63 0.90
The global 1-km, 10-day composite AVHRR N data 2. Evergreen broadleaf forests 9.39 0.69 0.93
from April 1992 to March 1993 as obtained from the 3. Deciduous needleleaf forests 1.52 0.63 0.92
4. Deciduous broadleaf forests 2.50 0.70 0.90
Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data 5. Mixed forests 4.86 0.68 0.88
Center (EDC) archive (Eidenshink and Faundeen 1994) 6. Closed shrublands 2.01 0.60 0.72
are used. To compute 10-day maximum N composites, 7. Open shrublands 13.96 0.60 0.39
they first applied orbital stitching, radiometric calibra- 8. Woody savannas 7.87 0.62 0.86
tion, and geometric registration of all five AVHRR chan- 9. Savannas 7.21 0.58 0.81
10. Grasslands 8.53 0.49 0.71
nels. Then, the maximum N value for each pixel and 11. Permanent wetlands 1.02 0.56 0.85
the corresponding values for each channel were selected 12. Croplands 10.89 0.61 0.86
for a 10-day period (or three composites per month). 13. Urban and built-up lands 0.20 0.62 0.74
The retention of the highest N helps to reduce the num- 14. Cropland/natural vegetation 10.80 0.65 0.85
15. Snow and ice
ber of cloud-contaminated pixels. Last, atmospheric cor- 16. Barren 14.22 0.60 0.11
rections for ozone and Rayleigh scattering of the 17. Water bodies
AVHRR visible and near-infrared channels (channels 1
and 2) were applied, and the maximum N value was
recomputed. No water vapor or aerosol correction was
water pixels also are defined as water from the N data.
applied, however, because of a lack of consensus as to
Only 1.25% of snow pixels are classified as vegetated
a feasible method. Data masks include missing data over
area based on N (with N p,max $ 0.05). About 40 000
land, ocean pixels, Goode’s interrupted area, and solar
pixels (or about 0.03% of the land) are classified as
zenith angles greater than 808.
missing data in the land cover data but have N p,max great-
Evaluation of this dataset over the continental United
er than or equal to 0.05. To make the two datasets more
States by Zhu and Yang (1996) revealed that the max-
consistent, the IGBP land cover data are modified slight-
imum value composite process described above has a
ly as follows: nonvegetated pixels (i.e., in the IGBP
bias toward postnadir direction, particularly during the
categories of snow and ice, water, interrupted points, or
winter, and thus this bias may be mitigated to a certain
missing values) that have N p,max greater than or equal to
extent by extending the compositing period from 10
0.05 are redefined as the dominant vegetation type of
days to 1 month. One-month compositing also was
the adjacent nine pixels; land pixels (from the IGBP
found to reduce cloud contaminations of data effec-
land cover data) that have ocean flags based on the
tively.
NDVI data are redefined as ocean. This slightly mod-
Also used are the global 1-km land cover data (Love-
ified IGBP land cover dataset is used for subsequent
land and Belward 1997), as derived from the global
work.
1-km N data spanning 12-month period (April 1992–
March 1993) (i.e., the same N data as mentioned earlier).
Their mapping uses unsupervised classification with po- c. Results
stclassification refinement using ancillary data (includ-
ing digital elevation data, ecoregions interpretations, A fractional vegetation cover s y for each pixel that
and country- or regional-level vegetation and land cover is independent of season (as discussed in section 1) is
maps). Of the six different land cover classification obtained by applying the annual maximum N (N p,max )
schemes they provide, the International Geosphere–Bio- to the linear (3):
sphere Program (IGBP) land cover classification (Bel- Np,max 2 Ns
ward 1996) (see Table 1), which is adopted by the Na- sy 5 , (6)
Nc,y 2 Ns
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration Earth Ob-
serving System (NASA EOS) program, is used here. where N c,y is the N value for each IGBP category that
Some other classifications also will be used in section corresponds to 100% vegetation cover. The use of N p,max
3 for comparison. implies that s y represents the annual maximum green
To evaluate the above two input data sources, the vegetation fraction for a given pixel. This use (in con-
maximum N for each pixel during the 12 months (de- trast to 10-day or monthly N) minimizes as much as
noted as N p,max ) is computed. Because the IGBP land possible the effects of cloud contamination.
covers were derived primarily from the same N data as Rules for determining N c,y and N s require the histo-
were used in this study, they are expected to agree with gram of N p,max for each IGBP category to be computed.
each other. Indeed, 99.25% of land pixels based on the The fifth percentile for the category 16 (barren or sparse-
land cover data have N p,max greater than 0.05 (i.e., the ly vegetated) is taken as N s (and this value is 0.05).
N value for bare soil; see section 2c), and 98.89% of Most of the other categories have their smaller NDVI
JUNE 2000 ZENG ET AL.
FIG. 1. (a) Histogram, (b) cumulative frequency distribution, and
(c) fractional vegetation cover of N p,max for evergreen broadleaf forest
pixels.
values in winter and thus have larger uncertainties
caused by cloud contamination and atmospheric effects
than in summer. Thus, it is not practical to determine
N s separately for each category, so we assume N s 5
0.05 for all the IGBP categories.
To determine what percentiles should be used for N c,y ,
a commercial imagery database (http://
www.terraserver.microsoft.com) of 1 terabyte of data
from mostly over the continental United States and
western Europe was extensively explored. This database
combines the 1-m-resolution digitized aerial photo-
graphs from the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) and the 2-m-resolution declassified images
from sophisticated Russian mapping satellites. Frac-
tional vegetation cover for each selected image was es-
timated visually by three authors independently, and
their mean values were used. The dominant land cover
types of these images were identified using the global
1-km land cover data. Because these images were taken
at times that usually do not correspond to the peak of
the growing season, the vegetation cover estimates are
of limited accuracy. On this basis, N c,y is taken as the
75th percentile for the IGBP categories 1–5, 8–12, and
14 and the 90th percentile for categories 6 (closed shrub-
land) and 13 (urban and builtup lands). Here N c,y for
category 7 (open shrubland) or 16 (barren or sparsely
vegetated) is taken to be the same as that for category
6. The N c,y values so determined are given in Table 1.
The effect of uncertainties in N c,y and N s on fractional
vegetation cover will be addressed in section 3.
The above procedure is illustrated by Fig. 1, which
shows the histogram and cumulative frequency distri-
bution of N p,max for evergreen broadleaf forest pixels and
829
their s y values. The use of the 75th percentile implies
that 25% of the pixels have 100% vegetation cover (Fig.
1b,c). Obviously, the percentile used for N c,y should be
higher for shrublands (e.g., the 90th percentile used in
this study) than for forests. It is clear from Fig. 1 that
N c,y based on the 75th percentile differs by only 20.02
and 0.03, respectively, if the 50th or 90th percentile is
used instead. In other words, N c,y is insensitive to the
exact percentile used for a given vegetation type. Figure
1 also shows that s y is greater than 0.95 for 50% of the
pixels, as expected for evergreen broadleaf forest, and
s y is less than 0.6 for only 1% of the pixels that are
located at the forest edge, are partially deforested, or
are misclassified.
Figure 2 shows the derived 1-km fractional vegetation
cover and the corresponding IGBP land cover and to-
pography data (from the global 30–arc second elevation
dataset, available at the time of writing at http://
edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/landdaac) over the southwestern
United States. The dominant land cover is shrubland,
followed by grassland and evergreen needleleaf forest
(Fig. 2b). Los Angeles is the largest urban area in Fig.
2b, and Tucson also can be found, at the lower-right
part of Fig. 2b. The fractional vegetation cover s y for
the forest is higher than that for the grassland, the s y
of which, in turn, on average is higher than that for
shrubland (Fig. 2a). In particular, the western half of
the Baja California Peninsula facing the Pacific Ocean
is covered by closed shrubland and has a much higher
s y than has the eastern half that is covered by open
shrubland. Figure 2c shows that evergreen needleleaf
forest exists only at high altitudes along the Mogollon
rim over central Arizona, the Sierra Nevada over Cal-
ifornia, and the mountains over Baja California. The
Grand Canyon can be seen clearly as the green sinu-
soidal curve in the upper-middle part of Fig. 2c, along
which s y is relatively small (Fig. 2a). These results are
consistent with the authors’ experiences as local resi-
dents.
Figure 3 shows the global 10-km-averaged s y . Frac-
tional cover is nearly 100% over areas with extensive
forest cover (e.g., the Amazon basin) and is less than
10% over deserts (e.g., the Sahara Desert). As expected,
the s y values are relatively low over tundra (over North-
ern Hemisphere high latitudes), the western United
States, western South America, western South Africa,
and in the interior of Australia. Figure 4 and Table 1
show the averaged s y for each IGBP land cover type.
It is about 90% for forests, 39% for open shrubland,
11% for barren and sparsely vegetated areas, and about
80% for other vegetation types. Figure 5 shows the zon-
ally averaged s y (over land). Consistent with Fig. 3, the
maximum s y occurs over the tropical broadleaf forests
and over needleleaf forests at high latitudes. Lower s y
values over subtropical areas (Fig. 5) correspond to the
barren or semiarid areas in Fig. 3. Lower s y values near
478S in Fig. 5 are consistent with those in southern Chile
and Argentina in Fig. 3.
830 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY VOLUME 39

FIG. 2. (a) Derived 1-km fractional vegetation cover, (b) IGBP land cover types (categories are
listed in Table 1), and (c) 1-km topography over the southwestern United States.
 JUNE 2000
ZENG ET AL.

FIG. 3. Global 10-km-averaged fractional vegetation cover based on the 1-km data.
831
832 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
FIG. 4. Averaged fractional vegetation cover for each IGBP land cover type (see Table 1). Results based on the IGBP, BATS, USGS, and
SiB2 classifications are denoted by the dark green, light green, blue, and red bars, respectively. Results from DeFries et al. (1999) are denoted
by the gold bars.
3. Evaluation of the dataset
Past attempts to validate global datasets for fractional
vegetation have been limited by the formidable diffi-
culties of such an effort. A comprehensive attempt at
validation should recognize that the computation of frac-
tional vegetation cover s y from (6) is insensitive to N s
because N s appears in both the numerator and denom-
inator. For instance, for category 1 (evergreen needleleaf
forest), changing N s by 60.03 would change the mean
s y by only 60.01. In contrast, because N c,y appears only
in the denominator, incorrect classification of pixels,
particularly between categories with significantly dif-
ferent N c,y values (e.g., grasslands versus broadleaf for-
est), might introduce larger errors. For instance, an error
of 0.04 (equal to the mean absolute difference of N c,y
between category 1 and other categories) would change
the mean s y by 60.07. As shown in Fig. 1, N c,y based
on the 75th percentile differs by only 20.02 and 0.03,
respectively, for evergreen broadleaf forest from its val-
ue if the 50th and 90th percentiles are used instead. The
VOLUME 39
corresponding changes of s y are only 0.03 and 20.04,
respectively.
The sensitivity of the derived values to the use of four
different land cover classification schemes is addressed
next. Global 1-km land cover data based on these four
schemes are all obtained from EDC (see section 2b).
These schemes include the IGBP, BATS (Dickinson et
al. 1993), USGS (see http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/land-
daac/glcc/globepint.html), and the revised version of the
Simple Biosphere model (SiB2) (Sellers et al. 1996).
They represent different aggregations of the same data
used in the unsupervised land cover classification
(Loveland and Belward 1997). They all have forest
types similar to those shown in Table 1 but differ in
their inclusion or omission of other vegetation types
(particularly cropland–natural vegetation mosaic and
tundras). Just as in using the IGBP scheme in section
2, N c,y is taken as the 75th percentile based on the his-
togram of N p,max for each category in the other three
schemes with the following exceptions. For the BATS
JUNE 2000 ZENG ET AL. 833

FIG. 5. Zonally averaged fractional vegetation cover (over land). Results based on the IGBP,
USGS, BATS, and SiB2 classifications are denoted by the solid, dotted, dashed, and dot–dashed
lines, respectively. Results from DeFries et al. (1999) are denoted by the double-dotted–dashed
lines.

scheme, N c,y is taken as the 90th percentile for tundra
and evergreen and deciduous shrubs. The N c,y value
(0.57) for evergreen shrub also is used for desert and
semidesert (categories 8 and 11). For the USGS scheme,
N c,y is taken as the 90th percentile for urban, mixed
shrubland/grassland, and herbaceous, woody, and mixed
tundra. The N c,y value for mixed tundra is used for bare
ground tundra, and N c,y for mixed shrubland/grassland
is used for shrubland and barren. For the SiB2 scheme,
N c,y is taken as the 90th percentile for dwarf trees and
shrubs, and this value also is used for shrubs with bare
soil. Equation (6) then is used to compute fractional
vegetation cover for each pixel using each of these
schemes.
Figure 4 shows that the four different classification
methods described above yield very similar results for
most of the vegetation categories. For shrublands and
barren (IGBP categories 6, 7, and 16), the USGS scheme
yields a higher s y than do the others, because N c,y is
just 0.47 (derived based on the 90th percentile for the
USGS mixed shrubland/grassland) versus 0.60 (derived
based on the 90th percentile for the IGBP closed shrub-
land). For grassland (IGBP category 10), the SiB2
scheme yields a lower s y than do the others, because it
puts grassland and agriculture (or short vegetation) into
the same category and hence uses a higher N c,y (0.61)
for grassland than that used in the IGBP scheme (0.49;
see Table 1). Figure 5 also demonstrates that these four
schemes give very similar zonally averaged results. This
analysis indicates that the derived fractional vegetation
cover is insensitive to the use of a specific land cover
classification method because of the use of percentiles
(instead of absolute values) to determine N c,y for each
category.
Next, the dataset is compared with that independently
derived by DeFries et al. (1999) using a more sophis-
ticated approach. First they derived linear discriminants
for input into a linear mixture model from 30 metrics
that represent the annual phenological cycle. Then they
determined coefficients (or endmember values) using
training data derived from a global network of Landsat
MSS scenes. Last they applied a linear mixture model
to derive global continuous fields in terms of life form
(percent woody vegetation, percent herbaceous vege-
tation, and bare ground), leaf type, and leaf duration.
Here, the sum of percent woody and herbaceous veg-
etations is compared with the fractional vegetation cover
from the current study. These two datasets give similar
variation of averaged s y from one IGBP land cover type
to another (Fig. 4). They also give similar meridional
variation of zonally averaged s y (Fig. 5). To compute
their correlation, these data were averaged into 0.58 3
0.58 bins, because DeFries et al. (1999) sampled data
every few pixels. The correlation coefficient is 0.85,
again indicating a good agreement.
The s y from DeFries et al. (1999) is systematically
larger than that of this study. (Figs. 4 and 5). Their
fractional covers for closed and open shrublands (IGBP
types 6 and 7) are higher by 0.15 (Fig. 4). Over the
Sahara desert, 100% bare soil is assigned in DeFries et
al. (1999) for pixels identified as barren (type 16) in the
IGBP land cover dataset to overcome the problem of
unrealistically high s y derived for those pixels. Despite
this, their s y for the barren type is still 0.05 higher than
this study’s (Fig. 4). Because shrubs and barren ground
occupy about 30% of the total land surface (Table 1),
it is important to resolve these differences. Their s y for
the urban area (type 13) is much larger than this study’s
834 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
(Fig. 4), but its effect on modeling is small because this
category represents only 0.2% of the total land surface
(Table 1). Comprehensive validation data, if available,
could be used to reduce these differences by relaxing
the assumption of full vegetation cover over their ho-
mogeneous Landsat MSS training scenes in DeFries et
al. (1999) and/or by decreasing the N c,y in (6).
The current study’s data could be compared also with
the maximum fractional vegetation cover derived by
Gutman and Ignatov (1998). Because they prescribe N c,y
in (6) as a constant value (0.52) for all pixels, their
fractional covers would be larger for all IGBP categories
except grassland, based on the N c,y values in Table 1
(assuming the same constant value is applied to the 1-km
data). As mentioned earlier, another important differ-
ence is that they derive fractional cover as a function
of pixel and season based on the assumption of a con-
stant LAI, but the current study’s s y is independent of
season (and LAI variation is used to explain all the
seasonal variation of vegetation greenness in a pixel).
Next, high-resolution (1–5 m) data over southern Ar-
izona are used to evaluate the data. Twelve channels of
data were obtained by the Landsat Thematic Mapper
(TM) simulator aboard an aircraft on 29 May (yearday
150) 1996. Flying over two different altitudes yields
pixel resolutions of 1 and 5 m, respectively. Twelve
channels of data of 3-m resolution were also obtained
on 12 August (yearday 224) 1997. The center of the
mapping area is 318319N, 1108089W over southern Ar-
izona. The data then were corrected geometrically and
georeferenced. Because N is most sensitive to red re-
flectance variations (e.g., Huete et al. 1997), data from
channel 5 (0.63–0.69 mm, equivalent to TM band 3 and
similar to AVHRR channel 1) are used directly to obtain
r5 2 rs
s5 , (7)
ry 2 rs
where r 5 is the channel-5 digital number, and r s and r y
are the corresponding channel-5 values for bare soil and
fully vegetated pixels, respectively. Here s is used to
separate from s y that uses N p,max in (6).
Visual inspection of the data shows that only the 1-m
data are able to distinguish individual shrubs; with a
swath width of 0.85 km, however, the mapping area of
the 1-m data is too small to evaluate the 1-km AVHRR
data. Therefore, the 1-m data are used to determine r s
and r y in (7) as the average channel-5 values over bare
soil and fully vegetated pixels (as identified by visual
inspection). The same values are used for the 5-m data
obtained in the same day. For the 3-m data (in a different
day), r s and r y are reestimated by using the 1-m data to
help to identify bare and fully vegetated areas. The s
values at the 3- and 5-m resolutions are shown in Fig.
6. The green belts represent trees and grasses along the
San Pedro River. In comparison with the 5-m data (ob-
tained before the monsoon season in Arizona; see the
dashed line in Fig. 7), the 3-m data (obtained during
VOLUME 39
the monsoon season) show greener cover. Table 2 shows
that the mean s value based on the 3-m data is twice
as large as that using the 5-m data. Because the 1-m
and 5-m data were obtained by the same instrument in
the same day, they show the same values. The only
difference is that the 5-m data have a larger swath width.
For this reason, results based on the 1-m data are not
shown in Fig. 6 or Table 2.
To evaluate the AVHRR data, the high-resolution s
values described above are averaged into 1-km boxes
and their mean, minimum, and maximum values then
are given in Table 2. Because only 2 days of high-
resolution data are available, it is impossible directly to
evaluate s y based on the annual maximum N in (6).
Instead, the N values for the same 10-day periods (but
in 1992) are used in (6), and the resulting statistical
quantities are shown in Table 2 for comparison. Table
2 shows that the current s is larger by 0.07 than that
using 3-m or 5-m resolution data, on average. To un-
derstand this difference, Fig. 7 shows the monthly pre-
cipitation observed at the Tucson Airport by the Na-
tional Weather Service. Because the 1992 spring
(March–May) is much wetter (87 mm of precipitation)
than the 1996 spring (only 8 mm), it is reasonable to
have a larger s, based on the 1992 N data in Table 2.
A larger s based on the August 1992 AVHRR data in
Table 2 can be explained similarly, based on the pre-
cipitation difference between the 1992 and 1996 sum-
mers. In August, the minimum s using AVHRR data is
larger than that using the 3-m data, and the maximum
s using AVHRR data is smaller. This result might be
caused partially by the year-to-year variation of N (as
implied by the precipitation difference in Fig. 7) but
also might indicate the nonlinearity between N and s.
Obviously these data cannot be used to evaluate data
from DeFries et al. (1999), but Table 2 shows that their
fractional vegetation cover is larger than the current one,
based on the annual maximum N. Note that their number
of pixels for averaging is smaller because approximately
only every sixth 1-km pixel was sampled in their dataset.
The Landsat TM data for four days (15 January, 20
March, 21 April, and 8 June 1997) also were obtained
for a 28 3 28 area centered at 109.48W, 31.48N over
southern Arizona. First, digital numbers for individual
TM bands were converted to radiances at the top of the
atmosphere, based on Moran et al. (1995). These ra-
diances then were converted to surface radiances, based
on the atmospheric correction code for this region (pro-
vided by Alfredo Huete at the University of Arizona).
Next, the channel-3 (visible; 0.63–0.69 mm) and chan-
nel-4 (near infrared; 0.76–0.90 mm) surface radiances
were used to compute N [based on (1)]. Last, N values
are used to obtain
N 2 Ns
s5 . (8)
Ny 2 Ns
Just as in (7), s is used to separate from s y that uses
 JUNE 2000
ZENG ET AL.

FIG. 6. The fractional vegetation cover [defined based on (7)] using aircraft data at 3-m and 5-m resolutions over southern Arizona. The swath widths of the 3-m and 5-m data are 2.5 km
and 4.5 km, respectively. Only parts of the scenes are shown, for clarity.
835
836 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY
FIG. 7. Monthly precipitation at the Tucson Airport. The years of
1992, 1993, 1996, and 1997 are denoted by the solid, dotted, dashed,
and dot–dashed lines, respectively. The 50-yr (1949–98) average
monthly precipitation is denoted by the plus signs.
N p,max in (6). Here, N s can be obtained easily as about
0.05 by averaging N over bare soil (as identified by the
1-m data). The N y is estimated roughly as 0.4 by forcing
s on 8 June 1997 to be similar to that from the 5-m
data on 29 May 1996. Its dependence on vegetation
category is not considered because land cover data for
these TM scenes are not available, nor are higher-res-
olution data at the same time (e.g., same 10-day period
and same year).
To compare the TM and AVHRR data, the s values
at 30-m resolution from (8) are mapped into the AVHRR
1-km boxes, and the maximum s values during the 4
days for each 1-km box are shown in Fig. 8. The cor-
responding s values were computed similarly by ap-
plying the maximum AVHRR N values for the same
four 10-day periods (but in 1992 and 1993) to (6). These
values and the 1-km IGBP land cover data are shown
also in Fig. 8. The mapping area in Fig. 8 represents a
small portion of Fig. 2, and Tucson can be found at the
upper-left portion of Fig. 8c. Table 3 gives the statistical
quantities from Fig. 8 along with those from s y that
uses N p,max in (6) and from DeFries et al. (1999). Both
Fig. 8 and Table 3 show that the s values from the
AVHRR data are larger than the TM data over grass-
lands and shrublands but smaller over forests and sa-
vannas. Because grasslands and shrublands cover 73%
of the area (Table 3), the mean s from the AVHRR data
TABLE 2. Comparison of fractional vegetation covers from the 5-m aircraft data (on 31 May 1996) and 3-m data (on 12 Aug 1997) vs
those based on the 10-day composite 1-km AVHRR N data (20-31 May and 10–19 Aug 1992, respectively) over southern Arizona. Results
using annual maximum N and from DeFries et al. (1999) also are shown. Minimum and maximum values from the 3-m and 5-m data are
obtained after averaging values into 1-km boxes.
5-m data AVHRR 3-m data
(May ’96) (May ’92) (Aug ’97)
Mean 0.17 0.24 0.35
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max 0.54 0.57 0.82
Area (km 2 ) 108 114 77
VOLUME 39
is higher than that from the TM data. The large differ-
ence over grasslands is expected, because the greenness
of grasslands is known to be very sensitive to precip-
itation over a semiarid region (e.g., Arizona), and pre-
cipitation in January and March 1993 and April and
June 1992 (when the AVHRR data were obtained) and
preceding months was much higher than in the corre-
sponding months in 1997 (when the TM data were ob-
tained). The larger s values using the TM data over
forests and savannas, however, might be caused by the
use of the same N y for the TM data. Because grassland
is the dominant vegetation type for the aircraft scene in
Fig. 6, N y (of 0.4) is tuned primarily to grassland. If
different and higher (as expected from Table 1) N y val-
ues were used for forests and savannas, the difference
of s between the TM and AVHRR data would be small-
er. Similarly, if a different (and higher) N y is used for
shrublands, the difference of s between the TM and
AVHRR data would be as large as that for grasslands,
because both grasslands and shrublands are affected
strongly by precipitation. Table 3 also shows that the
fractional cover from DeFries et al. (1999) is much high-
er than the current cover (based on N p,max ) for each
vegetation type. With an area average of 0.87, DeFries
et al. probably overestimated fractional cover for this
semiarid region.
Last, the current data were compared with those over
five areas of 9–35 km 2 in western Germany (Wittich
and Hansing 1995). These five sites are Wesermarsch
(088249E, 538169N), covered by grassland; Altes Land
(098459E, 538309N), used for fruit growing; Hildesh-
eimer Börde (108079E, 528149N), used for arable farm-
ing; Rheinhessen (088129E, 498459N), used for vine-
growing; and Pfälzer Wald (078509E, 498199N), covered
with forest stands. The typical land cover portions for
these areas were estimated by Wittich and Hansing
(1995) from agricultural, forestry, and statistical agen-
cies. Table 4 compares these values with fractional veg-
etation covers averaged over pixels within 60.058
around the above points, based on the current data and
those of DeFries et al. (1999). Because approximately
only every sixth pixel was sampled in DeFries et al.
(1999), their number of pixels for averaging is much
smaller than that of this study (Table 4). Table 4 shows
that the current values are within 0.07 of estimates from
Wittich and Hansing (1995) over four of the five areas,
AVHRR sy using
(Aug ’92) N p, max DeFries
0.42 0.65 0.88
0.16 0.45 0.76
0.59 0.84 1.0
114 114 15
 JUNE 2000
ZENG ET AL.

FIG. 8. (a) 1-km-averaged fractional vegetation cover [defined based on (8)] using 4 days of 30-m Landsat TM data for a 28 3 28 area centered at 109.48W, 31.48N over southern Arizona,
(b) fractional vegetation cover using the maximum AVHRR N values for the same four 10-day periods (but in different years), and (c) IGBP land cover.
837
838 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY VOLUME 39

TABLE 3. Mean fractional vegetation cover using data in Fig. 8. TABLE 4. Comparison of fractional vegetation covers over five areas
Results using annual maximum N and from DeFries et al. (1999) also in western Germany from Wittich and Hansing (1995; denoted as
are shown. WH) with those of the current study (‘‘ours’’) and DeFries et al.
(1999).
TM data AVHRR sy using
Land cover Area (%) (1997) (1992–93) N p, max DeFries Mean Min Max No.
Grasslands 41 0.37 0.56 0.67 0.91 Wesermarsch
Shrublands 32 0.28 0.35 0.39 0.72 Ours 1.00 1.00 1.00 73
Savannas 16 0.68 0.54 0.67 0.98 DeFries 1.00 1.00 1.00 2
Forests 10 0.87 0.69 0.79 0.99 WH 0.96
Whole area 100 0.44 0.50 0.59 0.87 Altes Land
Ours 0.91 0.75 1.00 72
DeFries 1.00 1.00 1.00 4
WH 0.98
and values from DeFries et al. (1999) are within 0.09 Hildesheimer
of estimates from Wittich and Hansing (1995) for all Ours 0.97 0.83 1.00 74
DeFries 0.90 0.79 1.00 2
five areas. The relatively large difference over Hildesh- WH 0.81
eimer Börde between the estimation of Wittich and Han- Rheinhessen
sing (1995) and this study’s [or that from DeFries et al. Ours 0.87 0.73 1.00 76
(1999)] could be caused by the year-to-year variation DeFries 0.94 0.85 1.00 3
of arable farming activities. Difference of fractional WH 0.86
covers averaged over all five areas is only 0.04 (or 0.05) Pfälzer
between Wittich and Hansing (1995) versus the current Ours 1.00 0.95 1.00 84
DeFries 0.97 0.94 1.00 2
study (or DeFries et al. 1999). WH 0.95

4. Conclusions
Fractional vegetation cover and LAI can be derived
from N data by specifying an explicit relationship be-
tween them or by specifying one parameter (possibly
as a function of space). For use of 1-km data in land
modeling (e.g., through the mosaic approach), it is de-
sirable to derive a s y that is pixel dependent but season
independent, with the seasonal variation of vegetation
greenness in a pixel accounted for by time-varying LAI.
The alternative of assuming fixed LAI and seasonally
varying fractional vegetation also may be useful, how-
ever. In particular, the seasonally variable vegetation
fraction from Gutman and Ignatov (1998) has been dem-
onstrated to improve results using the Mesoscale Eta
Model (Betts et al. 1997).
Using global 1-km, 10-day composite AVHRR N data
from April 1992 to March 1993, a global 1-km s y was
derived, based on the annual maximum N value for each
pixel in comparison with the N value that corresponds
to 100% vegetation cover for each IGBP land cover
type. This product has been evaluated by studying its
sensitivity to land cover classification methods, by com-
paring it with an independently derived dataset, and by
using higher-resolution data. Primarily because N c,y in
(6) (i.e., the N value that corresponds to 100% vege-
tation cover for each land cover category) is determined
through the histogram of N values in each category, the
derived s y values are insensitive to the use of a specific
land cover classification. When compared with that in-
dependently derived by DeFries et al. (1999) using a
more sophisticated (but still linear) mixture model, the
current dataset gives a similar spatial distribution of s y
but consistently smaller s y values (particularly over
shrublands and barren land cover). It also is consistent
with estimates from 1-, 3-, and 5-m aircraft data over
southern Arizona and field-survey data over Germany.
Comparison with the 30-m Landsat TM data shows the
expected strong dependence on precipitation of vege-
tation greenness over grasslands and shrublands in a
semiarid region (e.g., Arizona).
None of the above evaluations entirely validates this
dataset. The 1- to 5-m aircraft data might be relatively
reliable but are not in the same year and, perhaps, more
important, are available for a few days rather than for
an annual cycle. The 30-m Landsat TM data have a
higher spatial resolution and might give better estimates
of N than do the 1-km AVHRR data, but they have a
similar uncertainty (as that of the AVHRR data) in de-
riving fractional vegetation cover. The uncertainty of
field-survey data in Germany is unknown, and the in-
terannual variability of agricultural activities is not con-
sidered. To validate rigorously the current dataset or that
of DeFries et al. (1999), high-resolution (e.g., 1–5 m)
aircraft data over different land cover types for a whole
annual cycle would have to be obtained. Such data might
be available from some of the NASA EOS validation
sites in the future.
Although more complete validation would be pref-
erable, this paper still represents the first effort to eval-
uate carefully the derived dataset. If both fractional veg-
etation cover and LAI are derived from N, uncertainty
in s y can be partially compensated for in land modeling
by the adjustment of LAI. For instance, given the same
LAI (with respect to pixel), a positive bias in s y would
decrease LAI with respect to vegetated area (i.e., LAI/
s y ). Work currently is under way to address the differ-
ence between satellite-derived s y data and those as-
JUNE 2000 ZENG ET AL.
sumed by climate models, and to address how this dif-
ference and satellite data uncertainties may affect cli-
mate modeling.
So far only one yr of AVHRR data has been analyzed,
in part because of data availability and the difficulty in
handling over 150 Gb of data. Applying the same meth-
od of DeFries et al. (1999) to global 8-km AVHRR data
from 1982 to 1993, DeFries et al. (2000) have dem-
onstrated that the standard deviation of s y over these
12 yr is less than 0.06 for each vegetation type used in
their study. Because of the use of histograms rather than
the absolute N values, the current approach is expected
to give a slightly smaller standard deviation. Work cur-
rently is under way to quantify the year-to-year vari-
ability of the s y , based on multiyear global 1-km
AVHRR data.
Acknowledgments. This work was supported by
NASA through its EOS IDS Program (429-81-22; 428-
81-22) and the Department of Energy under Grant DE-
FG02-91ER61216 (to The University of Arizona), by
the VEGETATION Project (Cooperative Agreement 58-
5344-6-F806, 95/CNES/0403) at the USDA-ARS,
through the NASA Landsat Science Team (Grant
S-41396-F to J. Qi), and by NASA Grant NAG56004
to R. S. DeFries. All input data are distributed by the
Distributed Active Archive Center at the EROS Data
Center. Dr. Alfredo Huete is thanked for his group’s
assistance in using their atmospheric correction code
and for helpful discussions. Drs. Randy Koster and Gar-
ik Gutman and an anonymous reviewer are thanked for
constructive and helpful comments.
REFERENCES
Avissar, R., and R. A. Pielke, 1989: A parameterization of hetero-
geneous land surfaces for atmospheric numerical models and its
impact on regional meteorology. Mon. Wea. Rev., 117, 2113–
2136.
Baret, F., J. G. P. W. Clevers, and M. D. Steven, 1995: The robustness
of canopy gap fraction estimates from red and near-infrared re-
flectances: A comparison of approaches. Remote Sens. Environ.,
54, 141–151.
Belward, A. S., 1996: The IGBP-DIS global 1 km land cover data
set (DISCover): Proposal and implementation plans. IGBP-DIS
Working Paper No. 13, 61 pp. [Available from IGBP-DIS Office,
42 Ave. Gustave Coriolis 31057 Toulouse Cedex, France.]
Betts, A. K., F. Chen, K. E. Mitchell, and Z. I. Janjic, 1997: As-
sessment of the land surface and boundary layer models in two
operational versions of the NCEP Eta Model using FIFE data.
Mon. Wea. Rev., 125, 2896–2916.
Carlson, T. N., and D. A. Ripley, 1997: On the relation between NDVI,
fractional vegetation cover, and leaf area index. Remote Sens.
Environ., 62, 241–252.
Choudhury, B. J., N. U. Ahmed, S. B. Idso, R. J. Reginato, and C.
839
S. T. Daughtry, 1994: Relations between evaporation coefficients
and vegetation indices studied by model simulations. Remote
Sens. Environ., 50, 1–17.
Deardorff, J. W., 1978: Efficient prediction of ground temperature
and moisture with inclusion of a layer of vegetation. J. Geophys.
Res., 83, 1889–1903.
DeFries, R. S., J. R. G. Townshend, and M. C. Hansen, 1999: Con-
tinuous fields of vegetation characteristics at the global scale. J.
Geophys. Res., 104, 16 911–16 923.
, M. C. Hansen, and J. R. G. Townshend, 2000: Global contin-
uous fields of vegetation characteristics: A linear mixture model
applied to multi-year 8 km AVHRR data. Int. J. Remote Sens.,
21, 1389–1414.
Dickinson, R. E., A. Henderson-Sellers, and P. J. Kennedy, 1993:
Biosphere–Atmosphere Transfer Scheme (BATS) version 1e as
coupled to the NCAR Community Climate Model. NCAR Tech.
Note NCAR/TN-3871STR, 72 pp. [Available from NCAR, P.O.
Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000.]
, M. Shaikh, R. Bryant, and L. Graumlich, 1998: Interactive
canopies in a climate model. J. Climate, 11, 2823–2836.
Eidenshink, J., and J. Faundeen, 1994: The 1-km AVHRR global land
data set: First stages in implementation. Int. J. Remote Sens.,
15, 3443–3462.
Gillies, R. R., and T. N. Carlson, 1995: Thermal remote sensing of
surface soil water content with partial vegetation cover for in-
corporation into climate models. J. Appl. Meteor., 34, 745–756.
Gutman, G., and A. Ignatov, 1998: The derivation of the green veg-
etation fraction from NOAA/AVHRR data for use in numerical
weather prediction models. Int. J. Remote Sens., 19, 1533–1543.
Hall, F. G., D. E. Knapp, and K. F. Huemmrich, 1997: Physically
based classification and satellite mapping of biophysical char-
acteristics in the southern boreal forest. J. Geophys. Res., 102,
29 567–29 580.
Huete, A. R., H. Q. Liu, K. Batchily, and W. van Leeuwen, 1997: A
comparison of vegetation indices over a global set of TM images
for EOS-MODIS. Remote Sens. Environ., 59, 440–451.
Koster, R. D., and M. J. Suarez, 1992: A comparative analysis of two
land surface heterogeneity representations. J. Climate, 5, 1379–
1390.
Loveland, T. R., and A. S. Belward, 1997: The IGBP-DIS global
1-km land cover data set, DISCover: First results. Int. J. Remote
Sens., 18, 3289–3295.
Moran, M. S., R. D. Jackson, T. T. Clarke, J. Qi, F. Cabot, K. J.
Thome, and B. L. Markham, 1995: Reflectance factor retrieval
from Landsat TM and SPOT HRV data for bright and dark
targets. Remote Sens. Environ., 52, 218–230.
Myneni, R. B., and D. L. Williams, 1994: On the relationship between
FPAR and NDVI. Remote Sens. Environ., 49, 200–211.
, R. R. Nemani, and S. W. Running, 1997: Estimation of global
leaf area index and absorbed PAR using radiative transfer mod-
els. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 35, 1380–1393.
Sellers, P. J., S. O. Los, C. J. Tucker, C. O. Justice, D. A. Dazlich,
G. J. Collatz, and D. A. Randall, 1996: A revised land surface
parameterization (SiB2) for atmospheric GCMs. Part II: The
generation of global fields of terrestrial biophysical parameters
from satellite data. J. Climate, 9, 706–737.
Wittich, K.-P., 1997: Some simple relationships between land-surface
emissivity, greenness and the plant cover fraction for use in
satellite remote sensing. Int. J. Biometeor., 41, 58–64.
, and O. Hansing, 1995: Area-averaged vegetation cover fraction
estimated from satellite data. Int. J. Biometeor., 38, 209–215.
Zhu, Z.-L., and L. Yang, 1996: Characteristics of the 1-km AVHRR
data set for North America. Int. J. Remote Sens., 17, 1915–1924.