Sensitivity of the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI) and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to Topographic Effects: A Case Study in High-density Cypress Forest

Abstract

Vegetation indices play an important role in monitoring variations in vegetation.The Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI) proposed by the MODIS Land Discipline Groupand the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) are both global-based vegetationindices aimed at providing consistent spatial and temporal information regarding globalvegetation. However, many environmental factors such as atmospheric conditions and soilbackground may produce errors in these indices. The topographic effect is another veryimportant factor, especially when the indices are used in areas of rough terrain. In thispaper, we theoretically analyzed differences in the topographic effect on the EVI and theNDVI based on a non-Lambertian model and two airborne-based images acquired from amountainous area covered by high-density Japanese cypress plantation were used as a casestudy. The results indicate that the soil adjustment factor “L” in the EVI makes it moresensitive to topographic conditions than is the NDVI. Based on these results, we stronglyrecommend that the topographic effect should be removed in the reflectance data beforethe EVI was calculated—as well as from other vegetation indices that similarly include a term without a band ratio format (e.g., the PVI and SAVI)—when these indices are used in the area of rough terrain, where the topographic effect on the vegetation indices having only a band ratio format (e.g., the NDVI) can usually be ignored.

References 26

1. 1.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 6

• Challenges and Potential of Remote Sensing for Assessing <i>Salmonella</i> Risk in Water Sources: Evidence from Chile · 2025
  Not checked
• Spatiotemporal Analysis of Drought Variation from 2001 to 2023 in the China–Mongolia–Russia Transboundary Heilongjiang River Basin Based on ITVDI · 2025
  Not checked
• Using Landsat Spectral Indices in Time-Series to Assess Wildfire Disturbance and Recovery · 2018
  Not checked
• Different elevational patterns of rodent species richness between the southern and northern slopes of a mountain · 2017
  Not checked
• Pasture Monitoring Using SAR with COSMO-SkyMed, ENVISAT ASAR, and ALOS PALSAR in Otway, Australia · 2013
  Not checked
• Non-Lambertian Corrected Albedo and Vegetation Index for Estimating Land Evapotranspiration in a Heterogeneous Semi-Arid Landscape · 2010
  Not checked

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.