CSIRO PUBLISHING

International Journal of Wildland Fire 2012, 21, 257–269

http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF11024

Monitoring live fuel moisture content of heathland,

shrubland and sclerophyll forest in south-eastern
Australia using MODIS data

G. CaccamoA,F, L. A. ChisholmA, R. A. Bradstock A,B, M. L. PuotinenA

and B. G. PippenC,D,E
A
Institute for Conservation Biology and Environmental Management (ICBEM), School of Earth
and Environmental Science, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
B
Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires, University of Wollongong,
2522 NSW, Australia.
C
Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, Level 5, 340 Albert Street, East Melbourne,
VIC 3002, Australia.
D
The University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy,
Northcott Drive, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia.
E
Bushfire Dynamics and Applications Group, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Bellenden Street,
Crace, ACT 2911, Australia.
F
Corresponding author. Email: gc996@uowmail.edu.au

Abstract. Live fuel moisture content is an important variable for assessing fire risk. Satellite observations provide the
potential for monitoring fuel moisture across large areas. The objective of this study was to use data from the Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer to monitor live fuel moisture content of three fire-prone vegetation types
(shrubland, heathland and sclerophyll forest) in south-eastern Australia. The performances of four spectral indices
(Normalised Difference Vegetation Index, Visible Atmospherically Resistant Index, Normalised Difference Infrared
Index centred on 1650 nm and Normalised Difference Water Index) were compared. Models based on Visible
Atmospherically Resistant Index and Normalised Difference Infrared Index centred on 1650 nm provided the best results
(R2 values of 0.537 and 0.586). An empirical model based on these two indices was developed and its performance
compared with a meteorological index traditionally used in this context, the Keetch–Byram Drought Index. The empirical
model (R2 ¼ 0.692) outperformed the meteorological index (R2 ¼ 0.151), showing an enhanced capability to predict live
fuel moisture content of the fire-prone vegetation types considered.

Additional keywords: fire risk, foliage water content, KBDI, spectral indices.

Received 14 February 2011, accepted 12 June 2011, published online 20 December 2011

Introduction important to map the spatial connectivity of flammable (i.e. low-

Live fuel moisture content (LFMC), a measure of the water
content in vegetation, represents a critical factor influencing
wildfire danger in fire-prone ecosystems (e.g. Agee et al. 2002;
Zarco-Tejada et al. 2003). Monitoring LFMC is important
because moisture is inversely related to fuel flammability
and acts as a heat sink during the burning process, affecting
fire propagation (Dimitrakopoulos and Papaioannou 2001;
Chuvieco et al. 2002). Dennison et al. (2008) and Chuvieco et al.
(2009) found LFMC to be a significant influence on the occur-
rence of large fires in the Santa Monica Mountains (California)
and Spain respectively. In Australian shrub fuels, LFMC was
found to be the most important variable affecting the vertical
development of fire (Plucinski 2003). Monitoring LFMC is also
LFMC) fuels, which is considered a major influence on the
probability of large fires (Peters et al. 2004).
LFMC (%) is commonly defined as the percentage of water
weight over dry fuel weight (Chuvieco et al. 2002):


F w  Dw
LFMC ¼  100 ð1Þ
Dw
where Fw is the fresh weight of fuel and Dw is the dry weight of
fuel.
Field sampling represents the most reliable method to esti-
mate LFMC but it is costly, time-consuming and not feasible
for spatially explicit assessment over large areas (Ceccato et al.

Journal compilation Ó IAWF 2012 www.publish.csiro.au/journals/ijwf

258 Int. J. Wildland Fire
2003; Chuvieco et al. 2004). Several meteorological indices
have been proposed for monitoring LFMC as they provide a
wider spatial perspective than fieldwork-based assessments
(e.g. Dennison et al. 2003). Dimitrakopoulos and Bemmerzouk
(2003) and Pellizzaro et al. (2007) found the Keetch–Byram
Drought Index (KBDI) (Keetch and Byram 1968) to be corre-
lated with seasonal variations in LFMC of herbaceous and some
shrubland Mediterranean species. Nonetheless, the applicability
of meteorological indices in this context remains complex
because: (i) LFMC is not always dependent on weather condi-
tions and meteorological indices are more suitable for estimat-
ing FMC of dead fuels (Chuvieco 2008); (ii) the relationships
between LFMC and meteorological indices are often species-
specific (Chuvieco et al. 2004); and (iii) weather stations are
frequently sparse (Chuvieco et al. 2003).
Satellite observations provide a valuable alternative for
spatially explicit monitoring of LFMC based on physical char-
acteristics (i.e. reflectance, temperature) of fuels, at regular time
intervals and over extended areas (Stow et al. 2006; Chuvieco
2008). Different remote sensing methods have been proposed,
both using empirical models (e.g. Stow et al. 2006) and simula-
tion models (e.g. Zarco-Tejada et al. 2003; Yebra et al. 2008).
The Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)
(Tucker 1979) has been used for LFMC monitoring since the
1980s, with better results for grasslands than for shrubs and
trees (e.g. Hardy and Burgan 1999; Chuvieco et al. 2003).
Previous research has highlighted that NDVI is more sensitive
to changes in vegetation greenness than in vegetation water
content (Ceccato et al. 2001, 2002a). Consequently, the use of
NDVI is more appropriate for those species with known correla-
tions between water content of leaves (or degree of curing) and
chlorophyll activity (i.e. herbaceous species) (Ceccato et al.
2001; Verbesselt et al. 2007). Short-wave infrared (SWIR)
bands are sensitive to vegetation water content and, combined
with near-infrared (NIR) bands, provide more suitable informa-
tion for LFMC monitoring (Gao 1996; Ceccato et al. 2001).
SWIR-based spectral indices have been successfully used in this
context across a wide range of vegetation types including:
grassland (Verbesselt et al. 2007), forest (Maki et al. 2004),
woodland (Yilmaz et al. 2008), savannah–woodland (Ceccato
et al. 2002b), cropland (Jackson et al. 2004) and shrubland
(Stow et al. 2006). A spectral index based only on the visible
domain of the spectrum, Visible Atmospherically Resistant
Index (VARI) (Gitelson et al. 2002), has also shown strong
relationships with LFMC of shrubs (Stow et al. 2005; Roberts
et al. 2006).
In Australia, bushfires represent a major hazard and remote
monitoring of LFMC is considered important for fire risk
assessment (Justice et al. 2003). Previous applications of remote
sensing data found strong correlations with LFMC of grasslands
using Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR)
(Paltridge and Barber 1988; Chladil and Nunez 1995; Allan
et al. 2003; Dilley et al. 2004) and Moderate-Resolution Imag-
ing Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data (Martin et al. 2009).
There is lack of remote sensing studies focussing on other
widely distributed fire-prone vegetation types (e.g. sclerophyll
forest, shrubland, heathland). Although Datt (1999) retrieved
the water content of trees (Eucalyptus) using spectral informa-
tion, the analysis did not include the use of satellite images and
G. Caccamo et al.
was conducted at leaf level. Although the Grassland Curing
Index (Paltridge and Barber 1988) is used by fire authorities in
Australia as a quantitative guide to grassland curing, it cannot be
applied to other vegetation types (Hardy and Burgan 1999;
Justice et al. 2003). Further research is thus required to evaluate
the performance of satellite images to retrieve LFMC in
Australia.
This study represents the first attempt to monitor LFMC
values of three widely distributed fire-prone vegetation types in
Australia: sclerophyll forest, shrubland and heathland. The
analysis focussed on the fire-prone Sydney Basin Bioregion
(New South Wales, Australia). Drought has a major influence on
the incidence of large bushfires in this region through drying of
fuels over extended areas (Bradstock et al. 2009). Consequently,
remote monitoring of fuel moisture is of particular importance
for spatially explicit assessment of fire risk. The objectives of
this study were to: (i) analyse the sensitivity of a set of optical
MODIS-based spectral indices to seasonal variations in LFMC
across three different vegetation types; (ii) evaluate a pixel-
based normalisation approach for reducing the effect of site-
specific properties on the remotely sensed signal; (iii) develop a
single empirical model to predict LFMC of all vegetation types
combined without auxiliary information about fuel structural
properties; (iv) compare the empirical model performance with
a meteorological index commonly used in this context, KBDI;
and (v) produce MODIS-based maps of LFMC.
Materials and methods
Study area
The Sydney Basin Bioregion covers an area of ,3.6 106 ha
(Fig. 1a). The basin is characterised by a temperate climate with
warm summers and no annual dry season. The average annual
temperature ranges from 10 to 178C (monthly minimum, 1.4 to
8.18C; monthly maximum, 22.4 to 31.98C). Mean annual rainfall
varies from 522 to 2395 mm, with drier months during late
winter and early spring (i.e. July–September) (Fig. 1b–e).
Bushfires occur between October and March (the fire season),
with the greatest danger after the dry winter–spring period and
before the onset of the rainy weather common in summer
(i.e. October–January) (Castles 1995; Bryant 2008). The land-
scape is characterised by a rich array of highly flammable
vegetation communities with predominant sclerophyll wood-
land and forest (dominant trees: Eucalyptus and Corymbia spp.),
shrubland and heathland (Keith 2004; Tindall et al. 2004).
Field measurements of LFMC were carried out in eight sites
within three different vegetation types: shrubland, sclerophyll
forest and heathland (Fig. 1a, Table 1). All sites were selected
within protected areas to limit the potential influence of distur-
bance factors (e.g. vegetation removal). The size of the sampling
plot was 1 ha at LFP (Pippen 2008) and ,5 ha at RNP, RNP2,
RNP3, DNR, TNP, BCA and BCA2 (see Table 1 for site code
definitions). Each sampling plot was representative of a larger,
flat and spatially homogeneous surrounding area to avoid
subpixel mixing effects from using MODIS data.
Heathland
Two heathland sites (DNR and LFP) were selected for this
study (Fig. 1a, Table 1). DNR is located within the Dharawal
Remote sensing of live fuel moisture in Australia Int. J. Wildland Fire 259

(a) (b) 190 DNR 35

150°20'E 150°30'E 150°40'E 150°50'E 151°0'E 151°10'E

Precipitation (mm)

Temperature (°C)
Sydney Basin 13
140
2
34°10'S

25
N 90
5

7 4
40 15
34°20'S

6 (c) 190 LFP 35

Precipitation (mm)

Temperature (°C)
Weather stations 140
LFMC sites: 25
34°30'S

1 - RNP
90
2 - RNP2
3 - RNP3
4 - DNR 15
40
5 - TNP
34°40'S

(d ) 190 RNP, RNP2 and RNP3 35

6 - BCA
7 - BCA2

Precipitation (mm)

Temperature (°C)
8 - LFP
140

25
34°50'S

90
New South Wales

40 15
35°0'S

(e) 190 TNP, BCA and BCA2 35

Precipitation (mm)

Temperature (°C)
140

25
35°10'S

90

8 0 6 12 18 24 30
40 15
Kilometres
br y
M ry
ch
ril
ay
ne

Se ug y
em t

N ctob r
D mb r
em r
r
pt us
O be
ov e
ec e
be
Fe uar

A l
Ju
Ap
ua
ar

M
Ju
n

e
Ja

Fig. 1. (a) Map of the Sydney Basin Bioregion showing the location of the eight live fuel moisture content (LFMC) sampling sites. (b–e) Mean monthly
precipitation (mm) and mean monthly maximum temperature (8C) at the eight LFMC sampling sites: (b) Dharawal Nature Reserve (DNR); (c) Little Forest
Plateau (LFP); (d ) Royal National Park (RNP, RNP2 and RNP3); (e) Thirlmere Lake National Park (TNP) and Bargo State Conservation Area (BCA
and BCA2).

Table 1. Live fuel moisture content (LFMC) sampling sites description including vegetation type, geographic coordinates, species sampled, number
of available samples and years of sampling
The sites are: RNP, Royal National Park; RNP2, Royal National Park 2; RNP3, Royal National Park 3; DNR, Dharawal Nature Reserve; TNP, Thirlmere Lake
National Park; BCA, Bargo State Conservation Area; and BCA2, Bargo State Conservation Area 2

Site Vegetation type Latitude Longitude Species n of samples Years

0 0
RNP Shrubland 34808 S 151804 W Hakea teretifolia, Allocasuarina distyla, Banskia ericifolia 15 2009–10
RNP2 Shrubland 348100 S 1518020 W H. teretifolia, A. distyla, B. ericifolia 15 2009–10
RNP3 Shrubland 348080 S 1518060 W H. teretifolia, A. distyla, B. ericifolia 15 2009–10
DNR Heathland 348150 S 1508550 W B. oblongifolia, H. teretifolia, Xanthorrhoea resinifera 15 2009–10
LFP Heathland 348160 S 1508200 W B. ericifolia, Cyathochaeta diandra, H. teretifolia 45 2004–06
TNP Sclerophyll forest 348130 S 1508320 W Corymbia gummifera, Eucalyptus piperita, B. spinulosa 15 2009–10
BCA Sclerophyll forest 348190 S 1508280 W C. gummifera, E. piperita, B. spinulosa 15 2009–10
BCA2 Sclerophyll forest 348160 S 1518300 W C. gummifera, E. piperita, B. spinulosa 15 2009–10
260 Int. J. Wildland Fire
Nature Reserve and LFP within the Little Forest Plateau
(Moreton National Park). This formation is characterised by
an open-to-dense layer of evergreen shrubs and a groundcover of
sedges and rushes (Tindall et al. 2004). A detailed description
of LFP is provided in Pippen (2008).
Shrubland
Three shrubland sites (RNP, RNP2 and RNP3) were selected
within the Royal National Park (Fig. 1a, Table 1). This forma-
tion is characterised by a thick layer of evergreen shrubs with an
average height of 2.5 m (Tindall et al. 2004).
Sclerophyll forest
Two forest sites were selected within Bargo State Conserva-
tion Area (BCA and BCA2) and one at Thirlmere Lake National
Park (TNP) (Fig. 1a, Table 1). This formation is characterised
by a layer of evergreen trees (canopy cover ,50%) with
an abundant sclerophyll and evergreen shrubby understorey
(Tindall et al. 2004).
Data and methods
Ground measurements of LFMC
Time series of ground-measured LFMC were acquired
through two field campaigns carried out from 2004 to 2006
and from 2009 to 2010 at the eight study sites (Table 1, Fig. 1a).
Vegetation surveys based on the point intercept method
(12 transects of 50 m at RNP, RNP2, RNP3, DNR, TNP, BCA
and BCA2) and visual assessment (at LFP) were conducted to
analyse the vegetation structure at each site and identify the
dominant species to sample (McCoy 2005; Pippen 2008). Three
dominant species from each site were considered in our study
(Table 1). All the species included in the analysis are common
and widely distributed in the Sydney Basin, and thus represen-
tative of the entire bioregion (Robinson 1991; Tindall et al.
2004; Pippen 2008). LFMC was measured from destructive
sampling of live fuel foliage and small stems (3 mm or less).
Live samples were collected from branches of randomly selected
healthy individuals of each species.
At LFP, five samples (each containing 30–50 g) of live fuel
for each species were collected approximately every 2 weeks
from July 2004 to July 2006 (Pippen 2008). The clipped material
Table 2. Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) spectral indices evaluated
in this study
MODIS bands: 1, 620–670 nm; 2, 841–876 nm; 3, 459–479 nm; 4, 545–565 nm; 5, 1230–1250 nm;
6, 1628–1652 nm. NDVI, Normalised Difference Vegetation Index; VARI, Visible Atmospherically Resistant
Index; NDIIb6, Normalised Difference Infrared Index – band 6; NDWI, Normalised Difference Water Index
NDVI Band 2  Band 1
Band 2 þ Band 1
Band 4  Band 1
VARI
Band 4 þ Band 1  Band 3
Band 2  Band 6
NDIIb6
Band 2 þ Band 6
Band 2  Band 5
NDWI
Band 2 þ Band 5
G. Caccamo et al.
was placed into five sample tins and immediately weighed on a
portable balance (accurate to 0.1 g) in the field, using a level
platform in a wind-proof box to measure the fresh weight.
Samples were then transported to the laboratory and oven-dried
at 1058C for 48 h and reweighed to determine the fuel moisture
content according to Eqn 1.
At the other sampling sites, four samples (each containing
60–100 g) of live fuel for each species were collected at intervals
of 3–4 weeks from May 2009 to April 2010. After collection, the
samples were sealed in sample bags to avoid water loss and
stored in a portable ice chest to keep them in a dark and cool
environment. Samples were then transported to the laboratory,
weighed to obtain the fresh weight (Fw), dried in an oven until
they reached a constant weight, and reweighed to obtain the dry
weight (Dw). LFMC was computed accordingly to Eqn 1.
On each sampling date and for each sampling site, the
representative LFMC value of each species was computed as
the average of the samples collected for that species. A repre-
sentative LFMC value for each sampling site was then computed
by averaging the LFMC values of all the species sampled in
that site on that date. We calculated the representative LFMC
at forest sites by averaging samples from understorey and
overstorey because: (1) both layers were similar in structure
(evergreen and woody) and showed similar FMC values and
trends; (2) moisture levels in the understorey have a major
influence on fire spread; and (3) previous research has highlighted
that understorey can influence the remotely sensed signal at
canopy closure ,60% (Pereira et al. 2004).
MODIS reflectance data processing
A time series of MODIS 8-day composite surface reflectance
data at 500-m resolution (MOD09A1, collection 5) from 2004 to
2010 was used in this study. Data anomalies (e.g. cloud, cloud
shadow, view zenith angle .50.58) were masked out using
MODIS quality assurance layers. Four spectral indices (SI)
known to strongly correlate with vegetation characteristics were
calculated from MOD09A1 data (Table 2). NDVI and VARI are
sensitive to vegetation greenness properties, whereas the Nor-
malised Difference Infrared Index centred on 1650 nm (NDIIb6)
and Normalised Difference Water Index (NDWI) are sensitive
to vegetation water content (Tucker 1979; Gao 1996; Chuvieco
et al. 2003; Stow et al. 2006). The spectral indices considered
Tucker (1979)
Gitelson et al. (2002)
Hunt and Rock (1989); Jackson et al. (2004)
Gao (1996)
Remote sensing of live fuel moisture in Australia
were expected to be positively related to LFMC (Dennison et al.
2005; Stow et al. 2006) (Table 2).
MODIS spectral indices values were extracted using a
2  2-pixel window centred on the sampling sites. Mean values
of the four pixels were calculated to compensate for possible
errors in geolocation of the MODIS product (lower than 150 m at
the 99% confidence interval; Wolfe et al. 2002). A spectral
index normalisation approach called maximum–minimum scal-
ing (SImax–min) (Kogan et al. 2003) was applied to the MODIS
standard SI time series. This method calculates the relative
variation of a specific standard SI with respect to its maximum
and minimum values over a period of time (Chuvieco et al.
2002; Stow and Niphadkar 2007).


SIi  SImin
SImaxmin i ¼ ð2Þ
SImax  SImin
where SImax–mini represents the maximum–minimum value of SI
for period i, SIi the spectral index value for that period, and SImin
and SImax the minimum and maximum values of SI for the time
series of images analysed (Chuvieco et al. 2002; Stow and
Niphadkar 2007). Following an approach previously proposed
by Stow and Niphadkar (2007), SImin and SImax for each LFMC
sampling site from 2004 to 2010 were determined by averaging
the lowest three and highest three standard SI values. Extreme
minimum and maximum values (less than the average minimum
and greater than the average maximum) were scaled to 0 and 1.
SImax–min is expected to be a suitable approach for cross-
vegetation monitoring of LFMC as it provides a normalised
measure accounting for differences in site-specific properties
and reducing the effects of spatially varying fuel cover and type
on sensor-measured vegetation response (Chuvieco et al. 2002;
Stow and Niphadkar 2007).
KBDI data processing
KBDI is a meteorological index developed to measure
cumulative water deficits in the upper soil of forested ecosys-
tems and to assess fire potential (Janis et al. 2002). KBDI
provides fire managers with a tool for predicting moisture
depletion in dead fuels and live vegetation (McArthur 1966;
Verbesselt et al. 2006). The fire danger rating system actually
used in the Sydney Basin (Forest Fire Danger Index, FFDI)
incorporates KBDI to estimate the amount of fuel available for
combustion (Noble et al. 1980; Sharples et al. 2009).
Daily values of KBDI were computed using data from
weather stations located in proximity to the sampling areas
(Fig. 1a) following Dennison et al. (2003):
KBDIt ¼ KBDIt1
½203:2  ðKBDIt1  Pt Þ½0:968e0:0875Tmax 1:5552  8:30
þ  103
1 þ 10:88e0:001736Pa
ð3Þ
where t is the time interval of 1 day, KBDIt is the Keetch–Byram
Drought Index of time t, KBDIt1 is the Keetch–Byram Drought
Index of time t  1, Pt is the daily precipitation (mm) of time t,
Tmax is the daily maximum temperature (8C) of time t and Pa is
the mean annual precipitation (mm).
Int. J. Wildland Fire 261
The preprocessing of KBDI followed the methods of Janis
et al. (2002). At each weather station, the index was initialised
during periods of prolonged precipitation that bring soils close
to field capacity (KBDIt1 ¼ 0) (Janis et al. 2002). Missing daily
precipitation values were assumed to be zero (Janis et al. 2002).
Missing daily maximum temperature values were replaced with
interpolated values using the closest periods.
At LFP, precipitation and temperature data were recorded by
an automatic weather station (Pippen 2008). The positioning,
equipment used and recording techniques used at the automatic
weather station complied with Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)
standards (Pippen 2008). At the other sampling areas, precipita-
tion and temperature data were recorded by BOM weather
stations (Fig. 1a).
Meteorological data
Gridded maps of total monthly precipitation at 5-km resolu-
tion from 1970 to 2010 were acquired from the BOM (Jones
et al. 2009). The maps were used to calculate precipitation
anomalies (z score) relative to 1970–2010. The anomalies were
calculated for the cumulative precipitation in July–November as
the departure from the longer-term mean normalised by the
standard deviation around the longer-term mean.
Analysis
The temporal profiles of both ground-measured LFMC and SIs
were analysed to assess their co-variation and the sensitivity of
MODIS-based spectral indices to seasonal patterns of vegeta-
tion moisture content.
We used linear regressions to explore the capability of
MODIS spectral indices to predict LFMC of all three vegetation
types pooled. We analysed the performance of models based on
SI and SImax–min to assess the influence of data normalisation
on the regressions.
Various regression models that used multiple combinations
of MODIS spectral indices as predictors were derived and
compared with the intent to choose a single model for predicting
LFMC of all vegetation types pooled. For each vegetation
type, we randomly selected 70% of the available observations
(i.e. heathland, n ¼ 42; shrubland, n ¼ 31; sclerophyll forest,
n ¼ 32). This random sample (n ¼ 105), representing 70% of
the entire LFMC dataset (n ¼ 150), was used for the models
calibration. The selection of the best model was based on
Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) (Akaike 1974). The best
MODIS-based model (i.e. lowest AIC) was validated against
the remaining 30% of LFMC data (n ¼ 45) and its accuracy
estimated using the Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)
method (Wang and Liu 2005). MAPE expresses the forecast
accuracy as a percentage, and it is defined by the formula:

X  
100 n Ot  PRt 
MAPE ¼  O  ð4Þ
n t¼1 t
where Ot is the observed value, PRt is the predicted value and
n the number of observations.
We compared the performance of SI, SImax–min, the MODIS-
based model and KBDI for predicting LFMC of all vegetation
262 Int. J. Wildland Fire G. Caccamo et al.

(a) LFMC NDIIb6 VARI

types pooled. The regressions were based only on LFMC data
Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn
from DNR, LFP, RNP and TNP sampling sites. RNP2, RNP3, 150 0.5
BCA and BCA2 were excluded because: (1) there was just one 140 0.4
suitable weather station in proximity to the shrubland and 130
0.3
woodland study areas; and (2) at both areas, we selected only

LFMC (%)
120

SI
the closest site (i.e. RNP and TNP) to the BOM station to assure 110
0.2

KBDI values reflected the conditions at those sites (Fig. 1a). 100
0.1
Finally, we produced spatially explicit maps of LFMC for 0.0
90
15 November 2008 and 15 November 2009 based on the MODIS
80 ⫺0.1
empirical model. The spring season in 2008 was wetter than in

May-09

Jul-09

Sep-09

Oct-09

Nov-09

Jan-10

Feb-10

Apr-10
2009. We expected the LFMC maps at the end of the spring
season (i.e. November) to show lower moisture conditions in DNR
2009 than in 2008. Areas not covered with heathland, shrubland
and sclerophyll forest functional types were masked using (b) LFMC NDIIb6 VARI
a vegetation map at 100-m resolution (National Vegetation 150
Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn
0.5
Information System (NVIS), Australian Government Depart-
140 0.4
ment of the Environment and Water Resources, see http://www.
130
environment.gov.au/erin/nvis/data-products.html, accessed 31 0.3

LFMC (%)
120
May 2011).

SI
0.2
110
0.1
100
Results
90 0.0
LFMC and MODIS data temporal profiles
80 ⫺0.1
Jul-04
Aug-04
Sep-04
Oct-04
Nov-04
Dec-04
Jan-05
Feb-05
Mar-05
Apr-05
May-05
Jul-05
Aug-05
Sep-05
Oct-05
Nov-05
Dec-05
Jan-06
Feb-06
Mar-06
Apr-06
May-06
Jul-06
All the sampling sites showed seasonal variations and different
ranges of LFMC (Fig. 2a–d ). LFMC values tended to be lower
during spring or early summer and higher in autumn at all sites, LFP

decreasing during winter and increasing during summer. The

(c) LFMC NDIIb6 VARI
timing of minima was different across the sampling sites and
Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn
occurred from September to December (Fig. 2a–d ). The overall 150 0.5
minimum LFMC was recorded at RNP in October 2009 140
RNP RNP2 RNP3
0.4
(LFMC ¼ 80.56%) and overall maximum LFMC was recorded 130
at LFP in May 2005 (LFMC ¼ 142.52%). 0.3
LFMC (%)

120
The temporal profile of the MODIS spectral indices consid-

SI
0.2
110
ered showed a similar seasonal pattern at all the sampling sites 0.1
100
(Fig. 2a–d ). Only data of VARI and NDIIb6 are graphed in 0.0
90
Fig. 2a–d. The spectral curves showed an interannual variation
80 ⫺0.1
with lower values during spring and early summer, and higher
May-09
Jul-09
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09
Jan-10
Feb-10
Apr-10
May-09
Jul-09
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09
Jan-10
Feb-10
Apr-10
May-09
Jul-09
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09
Jan-10
Feb-10
values in autumn. SI values tended to decrease during winter and Apr-10
increase during summer. There was a marked difference in the
dynamic range of SI across the sampling sites. For instance, the (d) LFMC NDIIb6 VARI
VARI minimum value at RNP2 (0.07) and VARI maximum Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn
150 0.5
value at BCA (0.07) coincided (Fig. 2c–d ).
TNP BCA BCA2
140 0.4

LFMC regression analysis 130

0.3
LFMC (%)

120
The results of the regressions of LFMC on SI and SImax–min
SI

0.2
110
highlighted differences in the sensitivity of the MODIS vege-
0.1
tation indices to seasonal variations of moisture at the eight 100
0.0
sampling sites (Table 3). Considering non-normalised spectral 90

indices, the model based on VARI provided the highest R2 value 80 ⫺0.1
May-09
Jul-09
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09
Jan-10
Feb-10
Apr-10
May-09
Jul-09
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09
Jan-10
Feb-10
Apr-10
May-09
Jul-09
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09
Jan-10
Feb-10
Apr-10

(0.424) and the lowest root mean square error value (RMSE)
(10.727%). NDWI showed a more limited capability to predict
LFMC (R2 ¼ 0.256, RMSE ¼ 12.200%), whereas NDIIb6 and
NDVI performed similarly (R2 ¼ 0.407 and 0.395) (Table 3).
The LFMC regressions based on SImax–min provided higher
R2 values and lower RMSE values across all the spectral indices
considered (Table 3). The maximum–minimum normalised
NDIIb6 (NDIIb6max–min) provided the highest R2 value (0.586)
and the lowest RMSE value (9.091%), improving its R2 by 0.179
when compared with the non-normalised result. The model
Fig. 2. Temporal profiles of live fuel moisture content and two MODIS
(Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) spectral indices (SI),
Normalised Difference Infrared Index – band 6 (NDIIb6) and Visible
Atmospherically Resistant Index (VARI), at all sampling sites: (a) Dharawal
Nature Reserve (DNR); (b) Little Forest Plateau (LFP); (c) Royal National
Park (RNP, RNP2 and RNP3); (d ) Thirlmere Lake National Park (TNP) and
Bargo State Conservation Area (BCA and BCA2). The error bars represent
the standard error. Site codes are as listed in Table 1.
Remote sensing of live fuel moisture in Australia Int. J. Wildland Fire 263

Table 3. Coefficient of determination (R2), P and root mean square error (RMSE) values for the regressions of live fuel moisture content (LFMC)
on spectral indices (SI) and SImax]min for all sites pooled

SI SImax–min
NDVI VARI NDIIb6 NDWI NDVImax–min VARImax–min NDIIb6max–min NDWImax–min
2
R 0.395 0.424 0.407 0.256 0.493 0.537 0.586 0.391
P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
RMSE (%) 10.996 10.727 10.885 12.200 10.067 9.618 9.091 11.037

(a) 150
Shrubland
Sclerophyll forest
140
Heathland

130 Linear (All sites)

120
LFMC (%)

110

100

90

80
y ⫽ 77.411x ⫹ 85.860
R 2 ⫽ 0.407
70
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
NDIIb6
(b) 150
Shrubland
Sclerophyll forest
140
Heathland
Linear (All sites)
130

120
LFMC (%)

110

100

90

80
y ⫽ 40.396x ⫹ 86.089
R 2 ⫽ 0.586
70
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
NDIIb6max–min

Fig. 3. Scatter plot for live fuel moisture content (LFMC, %) regressed on (a) NDIIb6, and (b) NDIIb6max–min
for all sites (n ¼ 150).

based on NDVImax–min provided the smallest improvement in The scatter plot in Fig. 3a–b shows the effect of maximum–
R2, increasing from 0.395 to 0.493. The lowest R2 value (0.391) minimum normalisation on the distribution of the observations
and highest RMSE value (11.036%) resulted from the model in the LFMC%–spectral index space. Using non-normalised SI,
based on NDWImax–min (Table 3). the observations tended to cluster, separating the three
264 Int. J. Wildland Fire G. Caccamo et al.

Table 4. Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), DAIC, R2 and root mean square error (RMSE) values of the best three
Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)-based models
DAIC scores are the difference between the best model (lowest AIC) and each model’s AIC. Only models having AIC within
2 of the best model are shown

Rank Model AIC DAIC R2 RMSE (%)

1 NDIIb6max–min, VARImax–min 460.005 0.000 0.619 8.814

2 NDIIb6max–min, VARImax–min, NDVImax–min 461.671 1.666 0.621 8.844
3 NDIIb6max–min, VARImax–min, NDWImax–min 461.909 1.904 0.620 8.854

160 coefficient of determination (R2 ¼ 0.687), a RMSE of 7.980%

1:1 line and an MAPE of 6.223%.
150 Linear (Predicted LFMC, %)
MODIS v. KBDI
140
SI, SImax–min and NDIIb6–VARImax–min outperformed KBDI,
130 providing higher R2 values and showing stronger relationships
Observed LFMC (%)

with LFMC (Table 5, Fig. 5a–b). As expected, the regression

120
110
100
90
80
70
60
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Predicted LFMC (%)
Fig. 4. Scatter plot of observed live fuel moisture content (LFMC, %)
on predicted LFMC using the NDIIb6–VARImax–min model (n ¼ 45).
functional types in three different regions of the scatter plot
(Fig. 3a). Maximum–minimum normalisation reduced the scat-
ter around the regression line and the clustering effect (Fig. 3b).
MODIS-based LFMC model
Given that the maximum–minimum normalisation approach
exhibited higher performance for predicting LFMC of all
vegetation types pooled, all the SImax–min (i.e. NDIIb6max–min,
NDWImax–min, NDVImax–min, VARImax–min) were used to build
16 empirical LFMC models based on every possible combina-
tion of the four independent variables. The model based on
NDIIb6max–min and VARImax–min (NDIIb6–VARImax–min) was
selected based on the AIC ranking (DAIC ¼ 0) (Table 4).
The NDIIb6–VARImax–min model for all vegetation types is:
LFMC ¼ ½85:93 þ ðNDIIb6maxmin  25:21Þ
þ ðVARImaxmin  15:90Þ
where n ¼ 105, R2 ¼ 0.619, P ¼ 0.000, RMSE ¼ 8.814%.
The NDIIb6–VARImax–min model provided good results
when tested against the validation dataset (Fig. 4). The LFMC
predictions showed limited deviation from the 1 : 1 line, a high
line of LFMC on KBDI had a negative slope, because higher
values of KBDI indicate drier conditions and consequently
lower LFMC values. The NDIIb6–VARImax–min model produced
the highest R2 values (0.692) (Table 5, Fig. 5b). Maximum–
minimum normalised SI provided higher R2values when
compared with non-normalised SI (Table 5).
y ⫽ 1.199x ⫺ 21.797 MODIS-based LFMC maps
R 2 ⫽ 0.687
The precipitation anomaly values showed that, during the
RMSE ⫽ 7.980
MAPE ⫽ 6.223% drying-down period (July–November), 2008 was a wetter year
than 2009 (Fig. 6a). As expected, the maps of LFMC derived
from the NDIIb6–VARImax–min model showed a different pat-
tern in November 2008 and 2009 (Fig. 6b–c). The two MODIS-
based maps showed that, towards the end of the drying-down
period, the Sydney Basin was drier in November 2009 than in
November 2008. The most evident difference was in the northern
part of the Basin, where the values of LFMC were significantly
higher in 2008 than in 2009 (Fig. 6b–c). The southern areas of the
basin showed lower LFMC in both years, with drier conditions in
2009 than in 2008.
Discussion
Our results showed that MODIS-derived spectral indices have
great potential to predict LFMC in the Sydney Basin and,
therefore, represent useful tools for monitoring the spatiotem-
poral distribution of fuel flammability in this region.
The temporal profiles of MODIS-based SIs and LFMC
showed similar patterns and fairly high co-variation (Fig. 2a–d).
Both the variables showed lower values during spring and early
summer (September–December). The periods of lower LFMC
values (i.e. drier fuels) and of greatest fire danger in the Sydney
Basin (i.e. October–January) partially overlap (Fig. 2a–d). It is
therefore extremely important to monitor the spatial and temporal
ð5Þ variations of LFMC in this region, especially during the months at
higher fire risk, when low moisture-content values increase the
amount and flammability of fuels available for combustion.
The SI and SImax–min indices considered were related to
LFMC and the results indicated that MODIS spectral informa-
tion is sensitive to seasonal variations of LFMC (Table 3). As
expected, the relationships between the spectral indices
Remote sensing of live fuel moisture in Australia Int. J. Wildland Fire 265

Table 5. Coefficient of determination (R2) for the regressions of live fuel moisture content (LFMC, %) on Keetch]Byram Drought Index (KBDI),
spectral indices (SI), SImax]min and NDIIb6]VARImax]min model based on data from Dharawal Nature Reserve (DNR), Little Forest Plateau (LFP),
Thirlmere Lake National Park (TNP) and Royal National Park (RNP) sampling sites

KBDI NDVI VARI NDIIb6 NDWI NDVImax–min VARImax–min NDIIb6max–min NDWImax–min NDIIb6–VARImax–min
2
R 0.151 0.501 0.493 0.479 0.351 0.567 0.625 0.618 0.470 0.692

(a) 150 (b) 150

140 140

130 130
Observed LFMC (%)

Observed LFMC (%)

120 120

110 110

100 100

90 90
y ⫽ ⫺0.142x ⫹ 120.722 y ⫽ 1.074x ⫺ 4.609
R 2 ⫽ 0.151 R 2 ⫽ 0.692
80 80
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 80 90 100 110 120 130
KBDI Predicted LFMC (%)

Fig. 5. Scatter plot of observed live fuel moisture content (LFMC, %) on (a) Keetch–Byram Drought Index (KBDI), and (b) LFMC (%) predicted using the
NDIIb6–VARImax–min model based on data from Dharawal Nature Reserve (DNR), Little Forest Plateau (LFP), Thirlmere Lake National Park (TNP) and Royal
National Park (RNP) (n ¼ 90).

considered and LFMC were positive (Dennison et al. 2005;
Stow et al. 2006) (Fig. 3a–b). The results of the bivariate
regressions of LFMC on SI and SImax–min showed that NDIIb6
and VARI were strongly related to the LFMC of all vegetation
types pooled, providing the two highest R2 values for both
non-normalised and normalised spectral indices (Table 3).
NDIb6max–min provided the overall highest R2 (0.586). These
results support the general evidence reported in previous works
that SWIR-based spectral indices are suitable indicators of
LFMC (e.g. Datt 1999; Ceccato et al. 2001; Verbesselt et al.
2007). Chuvieco et al. (2002) and Yilmaz et al. (2008) found
strong correlations between NDII (derived from Landsat TM)
and LFMC values of a wide range of vegetation types. Datt
(1999) found the ratio of SWIR (1550–1750 nm) on NIR (760–
900 nm) spectral bands to be strongly correlated with water
content of Eucalyptus leaves. Our results also corroborated the
findings of Roberts et al. (2006) and Stow et al. (2005, 2006) that
showed VARI to be strongly correlated with LFMC values of
shrubland species in California. NDWI showed poorer sensi-
tivity to LFMC, with R2 values ranging from 0.256 to 0.391
(Table 3). This may be due to the higher sensitivity of NDWI
to background reflectance, and the stronger influence of
atmospheric water vapour and aerosol effects on MODIS band 5
(i.e. 1245 nm) used for NDWI calculation (Stow et al. 2005).
The goodness-of-fit increased when values of LFMC were
regressed on SImax–min (Table 3, Fig. 3a–b). These results
suggest that maximum–minimum normalisation is effective in
reducing the influence of site-specific properties and spatially
varying vegetation functional types on the satellite-measured
vegetation response, enhancing the LFMC signal in the SI, and
providing a normalised value suitable for cross-vegetation
monitoring of LFMC (Stow and Niphadkar 2007).
The MODIS-based empirical model proposed (NDIIb6–
VARImax–min, Eqn 4) combined greenness (VARI)- and water
(NDIIb6)-sensitive spectral indices to predict values of LFMC
(Table 4). This is in accordance with calls from other authors
who combined information on vegetation greenness and water
quantity to monitor LFMC at canopy level using satellite images
(Maki et al. 2004; Stow et al. 2006; Verbesselt et al. 2007).
Although empirically derived, the NDIIb6–VARImax–min model
shows potential for monitoring LFMC of different functional
vegetation types pooled (R2 ¼ 0.619, RMSE ¼ 8.814%)
(Table 4). Such a model represents a valuable tool because it
can be used when little knowledge about site-specific properties
266 Int. J. Wildland Fire G. Caccamo et al.

(a) 1.5

Precipitation anomaly
1
0.5
0
⫺0.5
⫺1
⫺1.5
2008 2009

(b) 15 November 2008 (c) 15 November 2009

N N

LFMC (%) LFMC (%)

127 127

85 85

0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Kilometres Kilometres

Fig. 6. (a) Precipitation anomaly for the period July–November in 2008 and 2009. Live fuel moisture content (LFMC, %)
maps generated using NDIIb6–VARImax–min model for (b) 15 November 2008, and (c) 15 November 2009. Areas affected by
fire during 2006–07 season are displayed in black.

is available (i.e. fuel types, vegetation structure). When tested
against the validation dataset, the model provided a good fit
(Fig. 4). The high goodness-of-fit (R2 ¼ 0.687), the low magni-
tude of the RMSE (,8%) and the good accuracy of predictions
(MAPE , 7%) were remarkable considering the validation
samples were collected across three different vegetation func-
tional types. Therefore, although further validation and more
ground-truth data will be required to test and improve the model,
NDIIb6–VARImax–min represents a good starting point for
remote monitoring of LFMC in the Sydney Basin Bioregion.
MODIS-based spectral indices outperformed KBDI and
were shown to be better predictors of LFMC in the study area
(Table 5, Fig. 5a–b). Our results corroborated the finding of
other studies, providing evidence that remotely sensed informa-
tion may be superior to meteorological indices for monitoring
LFMC (Ceccato et al. 2003; Chuvieco 2008). Meteorological
indices provide indirect estimations that are often species-specific
(Pellizzaro et al. 2007) and more related to dead fuel moisture
content rather than LFMC (Chuvieco 2008). Moreover, KBDI
represents an empirical approximation for moisture depletion
in the upper soil (i.e. 20 cm) (Janis et al. 2002) that does not
reflect the conditions of the deeper soil layers (Dimitrakopoulos
and Bemmerzouk 2003). The shrubs and trees in the study areas
(e.g. Banksia spp., Eucalyptus spp.) can extend their roots into
the subsoil and access deeper storages of water (e.g. Lamont
and Bergl 1991; Cohen et al. 1997; Laclau et al. 2001) when
moisture levels in the upper soil layers are low (i.e. high KBDI).
Consequently, these vegetation types can display high LFMC
levels during periods when KBDI values are high, as it is shown
in Fig. 5a. KBDI is therefore not optimal for monitoring the
moisture conditions of deep-rooted vegetation and we therefore
suggest incorporating SWIR-based information into the fire
danger rating system currently in use in the Sydney Basin
(i.e. FFDI) to account for variations in LFMC of live fuels.
Remote sensing of live fuel moisture in Australia
The LFMC maps produced represented an example of spatial
information that could be used to monitor fire risk at moderate
resolution (Fig. 6b–c). MODIS showed sensitivity to the differ-
ent weather conditions affecting the two seasons considered,
recording lower LFMC values during the drier year (i.e. 2009)
and higher LFMC values during the wetter year (i.e. 2008). Fire
authorities could use these maps to monitor spatiotemporal
changes in LFMC and the distribution of fuel patches at higher
fire risk. The same information could be used to better allocate
fire management resources and to plan fire mitigation actions.
These maps could be also used to evaluate the relationship
between spatial patterns of LFMC and fire activity and to assess
the influence of the distribution of flammable fuel patches on
fire behaviour.
Conclusion
This study represented the first attempt to use remote sensing
data for LFMC monitoring of shrubland, heathland and scler-
ophyll forest in Australia. We demonstrated that MODIS spec-
tral indices have great potential to monitor seasonal changes in
LFMC of fire-prone vegetation types in the Sydney Basin and
represent a sound alternative to weather-based methods tradi-
tionally used in this context (i.e. KBDI).
MODIS spectral indices showed fairly high temporal
co-variation with ground-measured values of LFMC, proving
to be suitable tools for monitoring seasonal changes in fuel
moisture. All the spectral indices considered showed strong
relationships with values of LFMC. Two spectral indices, one
based on SWIR reflectance (NDIIb6) and one on visible reflec-
tance (VARI), provided the highest R2 values for regressions
on LFMC data of all vegetation functional types pooled. A
maximum–minimum normalisation approach was found effec-
tive to reduce the effects of spatially varying fuel cover and type
on the sensor-measured vegetation response, and showed good
potential for cross-vegetation monitoring of LFMC. A single
empirical model based on maximum–minimum normalised
values of a greenness-sensitive (VARImax–min) and a water-
sensitive (NDIIb6max–min) spectral index was developed to
predict LFMC of all vegetation types pooled. The empirical
model significantly outperformed KBDI, suggesting that
MODIS data would provide more suitable tools for monitoring
variations in LFMC in the study area. We therefore suggest the
implementation of MODIS-based information into the fire
danger system (i.e. FFDI) currently used in the Sydney Basin.
Longer records of LFMC are needed to evaluate the sensi-
tivity of MODIS spectral indices and the empirical model
proposed against a wider range of meteorological conditions
and vegetation functional types.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted as part of a PhD at the University of Wollon-
gong with a University Postgraduate Award scholarship. This study has been
supported by resources provided by the School of Earth and Environmental
Sciences and the Spatial Analyses Laboratories at University of Wollon-
gong. The research was supported by a grant from the GeoQuEST Research
Centre (University of Wollongong) and the National Climate Change
Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) Terrestrial Biodiversity Network.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the NSW Department of Environment,
Climate Change and Water, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
Int. J. Wildland Fire 267
and the rangers of Royal National Park, Thirlemere Lake National Park,
Bargo State Conservation Area, Dharawal Nature Reserve and Moreton
National Park who kindly allowed the field work and provided useful
information about the sampling sites. The authors thank D. Roberts
(University of California – Santa Barbara) for his useful suggestions. The
authors also thank Moataz Nael Kordi, Charles Materazzi and LoVerena for
their valuable assistance during field data collection. The authors are in-
debted to the two anonymous reviewers for their comments that greatly
improved the quality of this work.
References
Agee JK, Wright CS, Williamson N, Huff MH (2002) Foliar moisture
content of Pacific Northwest vegetation and its relation to wildland fire
behaviour. Forest Ecology and Management 167, 57–66. doi:10.1016/
S0378-1127(01)00690-9
Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716–723. doi:10.1109/TAC.
1974.1100705
Allan G, Johnson A, Cridland S, Fitzgerald N (2003) Application of NDVI
for predicting fuel curing at landscape scales in northern Australia: can
remotely sensed data help schedule fire management operations? Inter-
national Journal of Wildland Fire 12, 299–308. doi:10.1071/WF03016
Bradstock RA, Cohn JS, Gill AM, Bedward M, Lucas C (2009) Prediction of
the probability of large fires in the Sydney region of south-eastern
Australia using fire weather. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18,
932–943. doi:10.1071/WF08133
Bryant C (2008) Technical and background paper number 27. In ‘Under-
standing Bushfire: Trends in Deliberate Vegetation Fires in Australia’.
(Australian Institute of Criminology: Canberra) Available at http://
www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tbp/21-40/tbp027.aspx
[Verified 31 May 2011]
Castles I (1995) Bushfires – an integral part of Australia’s environment. In
‘Year Book Australia 1995’. (Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra)
Available at http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/
1301.01995?OpenDocument [Verified 31 May 2011]
Ceccato P, Flasse S, Tarantola S, Jacquemoud S, Gregoire JM (2001)
Detecting vegetation leaf water content using reflectance in the optical
domain. Remote Sensing of Environment 77, 22–33. doi:10.1016/S0034-
4257(01)00191-2
Ceccato P, Gobron N, Flasse S, Pinty B, Tarantola S (2002a) Designing a
spectral index to estimate vegetation water content from remote sensing
data. Part 1: theoretical approach. Remote Sensing of Environment 82,
188–197. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00037-8
Ceccato P, Flasse S, Gregoire JM (2002b) Designing a spectral index to
estimate vegetation water content from remote sensing data. Part 2:
validation and applications. Remote Sensing of Environment 82,
198–207. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00036-6
Ceccato P, Leblon B, Chuvieco E, Flasse S, Carlson JD (2003) Estimation of
Live Fuel Moisture Content. In ‘Wildland Fire Danger Estimation and
Mapping. The Role of Remote Sensing Data’. pp. 63–90. (World
Scientific: London)
Chladil MA, Nunez M (1995) Assessing grassland moisture and biomass in
Tasmania: the application of remote sensing and empirical models for a
cloudy environment. International Journal of Wildland Fire 5, 165–171.
doi:10.1071/WF9950165
Chuvieco E (2008) Satellite observation of biomass burning implications in
global change research. In ‘Earth Observation of Global Change: the
Role of Satellite Remote Sensing in Monitoring the Global Environ-
ment’. (Ed. E Chuvieco) pp. 109–142. (Springer: New York)
Chuvieco E, Riano D, Aguado I, Cocero D (2002) Estimation of fuel
moisture content from multitemporal analysis of Landsat Thematic
Mapper reflectance data: applications in fire danger assessment. Inter-
national Journal of Remote Sensing 23, 2145–2162. doi:10.1080/
01431160110069818
268 Int. J. Wildland Fire
Chuvieco E, Aguado I, Cocero D, Riano D (2003) Design of an empirical
index to estimate fuel moisture content from NOAA-AVHRR images in
forest fire danger studies. International Journal of Remote Sensing 24,
1621–1637.
Chuvieco E, Cocero D, Riano D, Martin P, Martinez-Vega J, De la Riva J,
Perez F (2004) Combining NDVI and surface temperature for the
estimation of live fuel moisture content in forest fire danger rating.
Remote Sensing of Environment 92, 322–331. doi:10.1016/J.RSE.2004.
01.019
Chuvieco E, Gonzales JR, Verdu F, Aguado I, Yebra M (2009) Prediction of
fire occurrence from live fuel moisture content measurements in a
Mediterranean ecosystem. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18,
430–441. doi:10.1071/WF08020
Cohen Y, Adar E, Dody A, Schiller G (1997) Underground water use by
Eucalyptus trees in an arid climate. Trees 11, 356–362. doi:10.1007/
PL00009679
Datt B (1999) Remote sensing of water content in eucalyptus leaves.
Australian Journal of Botany 47, 909–923. doi:10.1071/BT98042
Dennison PE, Roberts DA, Thorgusen SR, Regelbrugge JC, Weise D, Lee C
(2003) Modeling seasonal changes in live fuel moisture and equivalent
water thickness using a cumulative water balance index. Remote Sensing
of Environment 88, 442–452. doi:10.1016/J.RSE.2003.08.015
Dennison PE, Roberts DA, Peterson SH, Rechel J (2005) Use of Norma-
lized Water Index for monitoring live fuel moisture. International
Journal of Remote Sensing 26, 1035–1042. doi:10.1080/014311604
2000273998
Dennison PE, Moritz MA, Taylor RS (2008) Evaluating predictive models
of critical live fuel moisture in the Santa Monica Mountains, California.
International Journal of Wildland Fire 17, 18–27. doi:10.1071/
WF07017
Dilley AC, Millie S, O’Brien DM, Edwards M (2004) The relation
between Normalized Difference Vegetation Index and vegetation
moisture content at three grassland locations in Victoria, Australia.
International Journal of Remote Sensing 25, 3913–3930. doi:10.1080/
01431160410001698889
Dimitrakopoulos AP, Bemmerzouk AM (2003) Predicting live herbaceous
moisture content from a seasonal drought index. International Journal of
Biometeorology 47, 73–79.
Dimitrakopoulos AP, Papaioannou KK (2001) Flammability assessment of
Mediterranean forest fuel. Fire Technology 37, 143–152. doi:10.1023/
A:1011641601076
Gao BC (1996) NDWI – a normalized difference water index for remote
sensing of vegetation liquid water from space. Remote Sensing of
Environment 58, 257–266. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(96)00067-3
Gitelson AA, Stark R, Grifts U, Rundquist D, Kaufman Y, Derry D
(2002) Vegetation and soil lines in visible spectral space: a concept
and technique for remote estimation of vegetation fraction. Inter-
national Journal of Remote Sensing 23, 2537–2562. doi:10.1080/
01431160110107806
Hardy CC, Burgan RE (1999) Evaluation of NDVI for monitoring live
moisture in three vegetation types of the western US. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 65, 603–610.
Hunt ER, Rock BN (1989) Measurement of leaf water content using near-
and middle-infrared reflectance. Remote Sensing of Environment 30,
43–54. doi:10.1016/0034-4257(89)90046-1
Jackson TJ, Chen D, Cosh M, Li F, Anderson MC, Walthall C, Doriaswamy P,
Hunt ER (2004) Vegetation water content mapping using Landsat data-
derived Normalized Difference Water Index for corn and soybeans.
Remote Sensing of Environment 92, 475–482. doi:10.1016/J.RSE.2003.
10.021
Janis MJ, Johnson MB, Forthun G (2002) Near-real time mapping of
Keetch–Byram Drought Index in the south-eastern United States.
International Journal of Wildland Fire 11, 281–289. doi:10.1071/
WF02013
G. Caccamo et al.
Jones DA, Wang W, Fawcett R (2009) High-quality spatial climate data-sets
for Australia. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal
58, 233–248.
Justice CO, Smith R, Gill AM, Csiszar I (2003) A review of current space-
based fire monitoring in Australia and the GOFC/GOLD program for
international coordination. International Journal of Wildland Fire 12,
247–258. doi:10.1071/WF03013
Keetch JJ, Byram GM (1968) A drought factor index for forest fire control.
USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,
Research paper SE-38 (Asheville, NC)
Keith DA (2004) ‘Ocean Shores to Desert Dunes: the Native Vegetation of
New South Wales and the ACT.’ (Department of Environment and
Heritage: Hurstville, NSW)
Kogan FN, Gitelson AA, Zakarin E, Spivak L (2003) AVHRR-based
spectral variation index for quantitative assessment of vegetation state
and productivity: calibration and validation. Photogrammetric Engi-
neering and Remote Sensing 69, 899–906.
Laclau J, Arnaud M, Bouillet JP, Ranger J (2001) Spatial distribution of
eucalyptus roots in a deep sandy soil in the Congo: relationships with the
ability of the stand to take up water and nutrients. Tree Physiology 21,
129–136.
Lamont BB, Bergl SM (1991) Water relations, shoot and root architecture,
and phenology of three co-occurring banksia species: no evidence for
niche differentiation in the pattern of water use. Oikos 60, 291–298.
doi:10.2307/3545070
Maki M, Ishiahra M, Tamura M (2004) Estimation of leaf water status to
monitor the risk of forest fires by using remotely sensed data. Remote
Sensing of Environment 90, 441–450. doi:10.1016/J.RSE.2004.02.002
Martin D, Jones S, Grant I, Anderson S (2009) Development of satellite
vegetation indices to assess grassland curing across Australia and New
Zealand. In ‘Innovations in Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry’.
(Eds S Jones and K Reinke) pp. 211–227. (Springer: New York)
McArthur AG (1966) ‘Weather and Grassland Fire Behaviour.’ (Department
of Natural Development, Forestry and Timber Bureau: Canberra, ACT)
McCoy RM (2005) ‘Field Methods in Remote Sensing.’ (Guilford Press:
New York)
Noble IR, Bary GAV, Gill AM (1980) McArthur’s fire-danger meters
expressed as equations. Australian Journal of Ecology 5, 201–203.
doi:10.1111/J.1442-9993.1980.TB01243.X
Paltridge GW, Barber J (1988) Monitoring grassland dryness and fire
potential in Australia with NOAA/AVHRR data. Remote Sensing of
Environment 25, 381–394. doi:10.1016/0034-4257(88)90110-1
Pellizzaro G, Cesaraccio C, Duce P, Ventura A, Zara P (2007) Relationship
between seasonal patterns of live fuel moisture and meteorological
drought indices for Mediterranean shrubland species. International
Journal of Wildland Fire 16, 232–241. doi:10.1071/WF06081
Pereira JMC, Mota B, Privette JL, Caylor KK, Silva JMN, Sa ACL,
Ni-Meister W (2004) A simulation analysis of the detectability of
understory burns in miombo woodlands. Remote Sensing of Environment
93, 296–310. doi:10.1016/J.RSE.2004.01.009
Peters DPC, Pielke RA, Bestelmeyer BT, Allen CD, Munson-McGee S
(2004) Cross-scale interactions, non-linearities, and forecasting cata-
strophic events. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 101, 15 130–15 135. doi:10.1073/PNAS.
0403822101
Pippen BG (2008) Fuel moisture and fuel dynamics in woodland and
heathland vegetation of the Sydney Basin. PhD thesis, University of
New South Wales, Sydney.
Plucinski MP (2003) The investigation of factors governing ignition and
development of fires in heathland vegetation. PhD thesis, University of
New South Wales, Sydney.
Roberts DA, Dennison PE, Peterson MP, Sweeney S, Rechel J (2006)
Evaluation of Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer
(AVIRIS) and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS)
Remote sensing of live fuel moisture in Australia
measures of live fuel moisture and fuel condition in a shrubland
ecosystem in southern California. Journal of Geophysical Research
111, G04S02. doi:10.1029/2005JG000113
Robinson L (1991) ‘Field Guide to the Native Plants of Sydney.’ (Kangaroo
Press: Sydney)
Sharples JJ, McRae RHD, Weber RO, Gill AM (2009) A simple index for
assessing fire danger rating. Environmental Modelling & Software 24,
764–774. doi:10.1016/J.ENVSOFT.2008.11.004
Stow D, Niphadkar M (2007) Stability, normalization and accuracy of
MODIS-derived estimates of live fuel moisture for southern California
chaparral. International Journal of Remote Sensing 28, 5175–5182.
doi:10.1080/01431160701616129
Stow D, Niphadkar M, Kaiser J (2005) MODIS-derived visible atmospheri-
cally resistant index for monitoring chaparral moisture content. Interna-
tional Journal of Remote Sensing 26, 3867–3873. doi:10.1080/
01431160500185342
Stow D, Niphadkar M, Kaiser J (2006) Time series of chaparral live fuel
moisture maps derived from MODIS satellite data. International Journal
of Wildland Fire 15, 347–360. doi:10.1071/WF05060
Tindall D, Pennay C, Tozer MG, Turner K, Keith DA (2004) Native
vegetation map report series. Number 4. Araluen, Batemans Bay,
Braidwood, Burragorang, Goulburn, Jervis Bay, Katoomba, Kiama,
Moss Vale, Penrith, Port Hacking, Sydney, Taralga, Ulladulla, Wollon-
gong 1 : 100 000 mapsheets. NSW Department of Environment and
Conservation, and NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and
Natural Resources. (Sydney)
Tucker CJ (1979) Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for
monitoring vegetation. Remote Sensing of Environment 8, 127–150.
doi:10.1016/0034-4257(79)90013-0
www.publish.csiro.au/journals/ijwf
Int. J. Wildland Fire 269
Verbesselt J, Jonsson P, Lhermitte S, Aardt JV, Coppin P (2006) Evaluating
satellite and climate data-derived indices as fire risk indicators in
savanna ecosystems. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing 44, 1622–1632. doi:10.1109/TGRS.2005.862262
Verbesselt J, Somers B, Lhermitte S, Jonckeere I, Van Aardt J, Coppin P
(2007) Monitoring herbaceous fuel moisture content with SPOT VEG-
ETATION time-series for fire risk prediction in savanna ecosystems.
Remote Sensing of Environment 108, 357–368. doi:10.1016/J.RSE.
2006.11.019
Wang Z, Liu C (2005) An empirical evaluation of the loop detector method
for travel time delay estimation. Journal of Intelligent Transportation
Systems 9, 161–174.
Wolfe RE, Nishihama MF, Fleig AJ, Kuyper JA, Roy DP, Storey JC, Patt FS
(2002) Achieving sub-pixel geolocation accuracy in support of MODIS
land science. Remote Sensing of Environment 83, 31–49. doi:10.1016/
S0034-4257(02)00085-8
Yebra M, Chuvieco E, Riano D (2008) Estimation of live fuel moisture
content from MODIS images for fire risk assessment. Agricultural and
Forest Meteorology 148, 523–536. doi:10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2007.
12.005
Yilmaz MT, Hunt ER Jr, Goins LD, Ustin SL, Vanderbilt VC, Jackson TJ
(2008) Vegetation water content during SMEX04 from ground data and
Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment
112, 350–362. doi:10.1016/J.RSE.2007.03.029
Zarco-Tejada PJ, Rueda CA, Ustin SL (2003) Water content estimation in
vegetation with MODIS reflectance data and model inversion methods.
Remote Sensing of Environment 85, 109–124. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257
(02)00197-9