The study evaluated GIMMS NDVI based on MODIS NDVI and SPOT NDVI over the same period from 2000 to 2015. We assessed their absolute values, dynamics, trends and cross-relationships between any two of the NDVIs for the national scale, as well as four separate land use types, i.e., paddy field, dry land, forest, and grassland. GIMMS NDVI was numerically greater than MODIS NDVI and SPOT NDVI. The three NDVIs exhibited equal capability of capturing monthly phenological variations. During the study period, the three NDVIs showed increasing trends in most regions, with GIMMS NDVI showing the smallest increment. Pronounced differences were identified in trends between GIMMS NDVI and MODIS NDVI or SPOT NDVI in the northwest, northeast, south-central China, Tibetan Plateau and Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, implying that GIMMS NDVI trends in these regions should be interpreted with caution. High correlations existed between the three datasets. MODIS NDVI and SPOT NDVI showed stronger correlations at national scale. The GIMMS NDVI and MODIS NDVI were in highest accordance for dry land, while MODIS NDVI and SPOT NDVI were in higher accordance for the paddy field, forest, and grassland than dry lands.
以MODIS NDVI和SPOT NDVI数据为基准对2000—2015年重叠时段的GIMMS NDVI数据进行评价.在全国尺度以及水田、旱地、林地、草地4种土地类型上对比分析3种数据的数值差异、动态一致性、变化趋势差异和两两间相关性.结果表明: GIMMS NDVI在数值上整体高于MODIS NDVI和SPOT NDVI,3种数据在反映植被月动态方面能力相当;研究期内3种NDVI数据在全国大部分区域均呈增加趋势,GIMMS的增加幅度最小,且在我国西北、东北、中南、青藏高原及云贵高原的部分地区与另两套数据差异较大,表明在研究该区域时应对GIMMS NDVI数据的使用有所保留;各数据间两两相关性较强,在全国尺度上MODIS NDVI与SPOT NDVI的相关性更好,旱地GIMMS NDVI与MODIS NDVI的相关性更好,水田、林地、草地MODIS NDVI与SPOT NDVI的相关性更好.
Keywords: GIMMS NDVI; MODIS NDVI; SPOT NDVI; consistency; correlation; spatial distribution; trend.