Detailed Reports on the Validationof the SGLI Products

2．Land Products

別1 - 12. Validation Results of Land Products
2.1 Evaluation Summary
Product

ReleasethresholdStandard
accuracy

Targetaccuracy

Status*1

Evaluation Methods◎

Evaluation of geolocation accuracies with GCPs prepared using
AVNIR-2 data.

○

Comparison with in-situ observed reflectance.

Grass:10%(scene),forest:10%(scene)○Comparison with in-situ observation and other satellite data.

Grass:10%,
forest:20%○

Comparison with in-situ observation (incl. the data from theliteratures).

○

Comparison with other satellite data.

○

Comparison with in-situ observations.

Precise<1 pixel<0.5 pixel<0.25 pixel
geometriccorrection
0.05
Atmospheric
0.3(<=443nm),
0.1(<=443nm),(<=443nm),
corrected
0.2 (>443nm) 0.05 (>443nm) 0.025
reflectance (incl. (scene)(scene)(>443nm)(scene)cloud detection)
Grass:25%(scene),Vegetation index forest:20%(scene)Grass:20%(scene),forest:15%(scene)Above-ground Grass:50%, Grass:30%,
forest: 100% forest:50%
biomass
Grass &
Vegetation
Grass & forest:
forest:20%
roughness index 40% (scene) (scene)
Shadow index

Grass &
Grass & forest:
forest:20%
30% (scene)(scene)Grass &
forest:10%(scene)Grass &
forest:10%(scene)fAPAR

Grass:50%,
forest: 50%

Grass:30%,
forest:20%

Grass:20%,
forest:10%○

Comparison with in-situ observation and other satellite data.

Leaf area index

Grass:50%,
forest: 50%

Grass:30%,
forest:30%

Grass:20%,
forest:20%○

Comparison with in-situ observation and other satellite data.

Surfacetemperature<3.0 K (scene) <2.5 K (scene) <1.5 K (scene)○

Comparison with in-situ observation and other satellite data.

*1 Symbols denote as follows; 〇: the release threshold achieved, ◎: the standard accuracy achieved, ☆: the target accuracy achieved.

別1 - 2

2. Validation Results of Land Products

2.2 (a) Precise geometrically corrected Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) radiance（LTOA）

Validation Method:- The geometric accuracies were evaluated by automatic matching of SGLI VN11 for VNR and SW3 for
IRS at 250 m resolution with AVNIR-2 ortho-corrected mosaic data around Japan islands.
- The accuracies of POL bands were evaluated as registration errors relative to the VNR band thatwere resampled to 1 km resolution by averaging.
- Evaluation method is quadratic curve fitting of cross-correlation coefficients (considering pixel
locking correction)
Validation data and condition, period etc.
- Reference data: ortho-corrected mosaic of AVNIR-2 with less cloud covers as shown below*1
GC1SG1_20180625D01D_T0529_L2SG_LTOAQ_0006.h5- Dependence of geometric errors on altitude was evaluated for confirming the accuracies of theortho-corrected images*1) Overall geometric accuracies of LTOA depend also on those of L1B. Regarding the geometric accuracies of L1B, please refer to the “geometriccorrection” on the SGLI calibration pages.
Target Image example: GC1SG1_20180625D01D_T0529_L2SG_LTOAQ_0104.h5

-1.0

+/-0
error [pixel]+1.0

Distribution of geolocation error between
SGLI/Lt_VN11 and AVNIR-2/Band4
Horizontal (X)Vertical (Y)別1 - 3

2. Validation Results of Land Products

2.2 (a) Precise geometrically corrected Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) radiance（LTOA）
Validation Results: Histograms (upper), altitude dependences (middle), statistics (lower) of estimated geometric errors

x
y

ave
-0.05
0.04

std
0.36
0.28

rms
0.36
0.28

VNR 183844 samples

x
y

ave
0.07
-0.06

std
0.46
0.32

rms
0.46
0.32

IRS 263228 samples

x
y

ave
-0.19
0.03

std
0.29
0.28

rms
0.34
0.28

POL (P1) 48525 samples

x
y

ave
-0.02
-0.04

std
0.26
0.19

rms
0.26
0.20

POL (P2) 41421 samples

Note: There is no systematic error depending on altitude, indicating that the ortho-correction works well.

Estimated errors

Release threshold

Standard accuracy

Target accuracy< 0.36 (VNR)< 0.46 (IRS)< 0.34 (POL)< 1.0 pixel< 0.5 pixel<0.25pixel

Release threshold & Standard accuracy are achieved

別1 - 4

2. Validation Results of Land Products

2.2 (b) Atmospherically corrected reflectance (RSRF)
Validation Method:--

Accuracy targets were defined as RMSE of the reflectances acquired at the ground surface with moderate
reflectance of around 0.2 at solar zenith angles SZA less than 30 degrees. In addition, the release threshold isdefined as the value acquired at the condition of aerosol optical depth AOT (at the wavelength of 500 nm) lessthan 0.25.
In-situ measured reflectances simultaneously acquired with the SGLI observations were used for evaluating
RMSE. (Relative errors for the reflectance of 0.2 were also evaluated for comparison).

Validation data and condition etc.:-

In-situ data measured within the time window of 1-1.5 hours at the sites shown in the figure below (for theperiod during Jan. 24 to Sep. 28, 2018)
All the SGLI channels except for VN07 and VN10 (saturated at land areas) and SW02 (water vapor absorption
channel) were evaluated.
The data of pixels at AOT>0.8 and/or with cloudy or cloud shadow flags were eliminated.
(There is no change at conditions of τa ≤0.25 and/or SZA ≤ 30deg. See the table shown on the next page）
AsiaFlux/PEN sites
PI’s sites

PI’s site

CEOS/RadCALNET

別1 - 5

2. Validation Results of Land Products

2.2 (b) Atmospherically corrected reflectance (RSRF)
Validation Results:
RMS differences due to QC types

0.015
36%

0.013
26%

0.014
23%

0.017
23%

0.021
20%

0.027
27%

0.026
19%

0.076
27%

0.062
20%

0.032
9%

0.036
9%

0.034
11%

0.036
31%

0.083
27%

band left fig. sza<30 aot<0 Both.25
N= 52-116 21-65 44-92 16-43
VN01 0.015 0.016 0.014 0.014
VN02 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.011
VN03 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.012
VN04 0.017 0.014 0.018 0.013
VN05 0.021 0.019 0.021 0.018
VN06 0.027 0.031 0.029 0.034
VN08 0.026 0.019 0.027 0.017
VN09 0.076 0.085 0.078 0.086
VN11 0.062 0.065 0.056 0.060
SW01 0.032 0.031 0.030 0.029
SW03 0.036 0.040 0.033 0.036
SW04 0.034 0.038 0.032 0.034
PI01
0.036 0.026 0.040 0.026
PI02
0.083 0.068 0.087 0.067

Evaluated with insitu measured flux
reflectances because
in-situ BRDF
observations are
difficult on the
ground within 1 km x
1km field of view.

Estimated errors

Release threshold

Standard accuracy

Target accuracy

0.019(<=443nm)
0.084 (>443nm)

0.3 (<=443nm) →150%
0.2 (>443nm) →100%

0.1 (<=443nm) →50%
0.05 (>443nm) →25%

0.05 (<=443nm) →25%
0.025 (>443nm) →13%

Release threshold is achieved

Relative errors estimatedfor the reflectance of 0.2

別1 - 6

2.2 (b) Atmospherically corrected reflectance (RSRF)
Comparison with BRDF models of POLDER

RMS=
0.018

0.028

0.055





0.021

0.059

0.074

0.022

0.026

0.054

0.055

Maignan, F., et al.,Polarized reflectances ofnatural surfaces: Spaceborne
measurements and analyticalmodeling, Remote Sensing
of Environment (2009)

BRDF models of POLDER (observation years are different)
were used for simulating SGLI slant observations

BRDF models of POLDER are derived for land cover classes with relatively homogeneous surface.
The differences in center wavelengths of SGLI and POLDER were corrected by interpolation.
SGLI-derived reflectances are consistent well with those of POLDER except at bare land.

別1 - 7

2.2 (b) Atmospherically corrected reflectance (RSRF)
Supplemental evaluations for slant observations
0.024

0.028

0.026

0.029

0.036

0.054

0.046
0.091

0.049






0.051
0.089

0.055
BRDF models of MODIS (observation years are the same)
were used for simulating SGLI slant observations

Comparison with MODIS-derived global BRDF products.
The differences in center wavelengths of SGLI and MODIS were corrected by interpolation.
SGLI-derived reflectances are consistent well with that of MODIS within the same orders of RMS for in-situ observation.
Peak and frequency were consistent well with those of MODIS with relatively large variances of slant observation bands (*possibly due tothe difference in the direction of slant observation path. That is, the line of sight of SGLI is along track whereas that of MODIS is cross-track.）

別1 - 8

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (c) Vegetation indices (VGI: NDVI, EVI)
Validation Method:--

Comparisons of SGLI-derived VGIs with those derived from in-situ observed spectralreflectances*1 were made for forest and grass areas.

*1： Comparisons were made only for the sites with a homogeneous land cover class (LCC) within one pixel (250mx250m) of SGLI after
checking the homogeneity of LCC with high resolution satellite imagery

As a supplemental evaluation, comparison with other satellite products (MODIS Terra 16-dayscomposites [MOD13Q1]） was also made.

Validation data and condition etc.:-

Sky-camera data were used to eliminate cloud contaminated SGLI data.
For the in-situ sites with less observation data within the validation periods (Baganuul,
BayanUnjuul, Watarase, Teshio, Lambir) 10-day composite of SGLI data was compared with insitu data assuming that there is no change in VGIs during the composite period.
Because there are few in-situ data for grass land, the data at Mase (LCC: Paddy) acquired during
July 1st to August 30th were used for the ground truth of grass land.
Comparisons with other satellite products were made for a date within the composite period ofeach products.

Validation period:-

August 22nd to October 30th 2018 for all the sites.
April 21st to July 31st 2018 for Takayama (TKY), Fuhihokuroku (FHK) Watarase (WTR), Mase (MSE).
The in-situ data during the period with solar zenith angle larger than 70 degree for Poker Flat
Research Range (PFRR) were eliminated.
The data on August 29, 30, and 31 were used for the comparison with MODIS products.
別1 - 9

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (c) Vegetation indices (VGI: NDVI)

Location of in-situ sites

Validation Results (vs. in-situ observation):

PFRR
BayanUnjuul

All cases

Only for clear weather cases

BaganuulLambirTSE

Forest: 8.45%

Forest: 11.45%, Grass: 10.62%: Forest (num. of plots=17)
× : Grass (num. of plots=0)

TKY
MSE, WTR: Forest (num. of plots=80)
× : Grass (num. of plots=27)

FHK

Estimated errors

Release threshold

Standard accuracy

Target accuracy

8 (11*1) %11*1 %

20% (Forest) scene,
25% (Grass) scene

15% (Forest) scene,
20% (Grass) scene

10% (Forest) scene,
10% (Grass) scene*1 Evaluated errors using all the data including potentially cloud contaminated ones

Release threshold & Standard accuracy are achieved(Remarks: The standard accuracy are achieved even using possibly cloud contaminated data.
Currently there are few in-situ data for grass land. )6 - 102. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (c) Vegetation indices (VGI: NDVI)Validation Results (vs. other satellite product of NDVI):

ForestMOD13Q1

Grass
T2A（ndvi_MVC）[2018/8/29-9/13]

MOD13Q1 [2018/8/29-9/13]

num. of plots=9997

num. of plots=10225

MOD13Q1: Aug.29-Sep.12 [16-day composites] vs. SGLI: Aug. 29, 30,31
Forest: GlobCover’s forest class
Copernicus/GIOGL1_NDVI300_V1.0.1 [9/1-9/10]
Grass: GlobCover’s grass, sparse vegetation, farm classes
NDVI

0

1 others

Estimated errors

Release threshold

Standard accuracy

Target accuracy

19 %
24 %

20% (Forest) scene,
25% (Grass) scene

15% (Forest) scene,
20% (Grass) scene

10% (Forest) scene,
10% (Grass) scene

Release threshold is achieved (vs. other satellite products)
6 - 112. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (c) Vegetation indices (VGI: EVI)

Location of in-situ sites

Validation Results (vs. in-situ observation):

PFRR
BayanUnjuul

Only for clear weather cases

All cases

BaganuulLambir

TSE

TKY
森林: 19.34%: 森林(num. of plots=17)
× : 草原(num. of plots=0)

MSE, WTR

森林: 26.46%, 草原: 23.96%: 森林(num. of plots=80)
× : 草原(num. of plots=27)

FHK

Estimated errors

Release threshold

Standard accuracy

Target accuracy

19(26*1) %24*1 %

20% (Forest) scene,
25% (Grass) scene

15% (Forest) scene,
20% (Grass) scene

10% (Forest) scene,
10% (Grass) scene*1 Evaluated errors using all the data including potentially cloud contaminated ones

Release threshold & Standard accuracy are achieved(Remarks: The standard accuracy are achieved even using possibly cloud contaminated data.
Currently there are few in-situ data for grass land. )6 - 12

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (c) Vegetation indices (VGI: EVI)

Validation Results*1 (vs. other satellite product of EVI):

ForestMean：0.37
RMSE: 0.10
num. of plots=9994

MOD13Q1

Grass
Mean：0.25
RMSE: 0.08
num. of plots=10222

T2A（ndvi_MVC）[2018/8/29-9/13]

MOD13Q1: Aug.29-Sep.12 [16-day composites] vs. SGLI: Aug. 29, 30,31
Forest: GlobCover’s forest class
EVI
Grass: GlobCover’s grass, sparse vegetation, farm classes

MOD13Q1 [2018/8/29-9/13]

0

1 others*1 These are supplemental results because EVI depends on satellite zenith angle and weather condition etc.

6 - 13

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (d) Above-ground biomass (AGB)
Validation Method:-

Comparisons of SGLI-derived AGBs with those derived from in-situ observations were made for forest andgrass areas.
As supplemental data for the in-situ reference, AGB obtained from FOS data (http://forest-observationsystem.net/) were used.
As a supplemental evaluation, comparison with other satellite products (Global Forest Biomass Map by WUR,
GlobalBiomassCarbon2000, GlobBiomass) was also made.

Validation data and condition etc.:-

One-month averages of SGLI AGB data were compared with in-situ data assuming that there is no change in
AGBs during one-month.
The pixels with bit-flags of low quality and probably cloudy were eliminated.
Before the comparison with SGLI-derived AGBs, the quality of AGB data from FOS were checked and filtered inorder to ensure that the value of AGB does not change even in the SGLI’s spatial resolution.
Comparison with other satellite products was made based on image appearance.

Validation period:-

August 23nd to September 25th 2018.

Location of in-situ sites
Spasskaya Pad
URY
PFRR
MGL(２サイト)
LambirWTR
ボリビア４サイト

FHK

FOSサイト

別1 - 14

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (d) Above-ground biomass (AGB)

Comparison with other satellite products

Validation Results:

SGLI [2018/9/1-9/12]
Grass

Forest: 62.20%(excl. .FOS), 47.82% (all)Grass: 42.59%: In-situ data
× : FOS data
Forest (num. of plots=23)
Grass (num. of plots=2)

Global Forest Biomass Map by WUR

GlobalBiomassCarbon2000
AGB [t/ha] 0

400 others

Estimated errors

Release threshold

Standard accuracy

Target accuracy

48 (62*1)%
43 %100% (Forest),
50% (Grass)

50% (Forest),
30% (Grass)

20% (Forest),
10% (Grass)*1 Results excluding FOS data

Release threshold is achieved

別1 - 15

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (d) Above-ground biomass (AGB)
Validation Results (cont.):

Comparison with other satellite-derived AGB products
A）

C）

B）

A）

B）

C）

D）

D）

AGB [t/ha] 0

400 others

A): SGLI （averaging [9/1-12]）
B): GlobalForestBiomassMap by WUR [GEOCARBON] (forest area only)C): New IPCC Tier1 Global Biomass Carbon Map For the Year 2000
D): DUE GlobBiomass by ESA (forest area only)

別1 - 16

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (e) Vegetation roughness index (VRI)
Validation Method:-

Comparisons of SGLI-derived VRIs with those derived from in-situ observed directionalreflectances were made for forest and grass areas.
Due to the bad weather in 2018, there are no in-situ data obtained under clear sky conditions.
That is why the comparisons were made with in-situ data obtained under cloudy conditions
and other satellite products.

Validation data and condition etc.:-

In-situ VRIs were first derived from reflecnances observed at the same geometric conditions as
SGLI observations using the same equation defined in the SGLI algorithm, and then comparedwith SGLI-derived VRIs.
The pixels with bit-flags of low quality were eliminated.
Due to the bad weather in 2018, evaluations were made using only the data shown below;- Simulated VRIs derived from MODIS/BRDF product (MCD43A1) acquired on October 28,
2018 using only the reflectances at the same geometric conditions as those of SGLI.
- In-situ derived VRIs calculated from BRDF data acquired at Watarase on May 21, 2018
under cloudy conditions (Only the SGLI and in-situ data with the same sensor zenith
angle of within ±5 degree were used for comparison).

Validation period:-

October 28th, November 3rd 2018 (vs. MCD43A).
May 1st to June 10th 2018 (vs. Watarase).
別1 - 17

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (e) Vegetation roughness index (VRI)
Validation Results:
Comparison with VRIs derived from MCD43A1

SGLI/VRI [2018/10/28]
Sites for comparison

Comparison with in-situ derived VRIs at Watarase under cloudy condition
Cloud contaminatedwithin 1 pixel (1km): Release thoreshold*By eliminating the pixels withcloud contamination and/or
pixel location errors, theestimated errors become: Sensor zenith<±5°23.26% (below the release× : Sensor zenith>±5°
threshold) .

Pixel location
error

Estimated errors
21*1, 23*2%

Release threshold
40% (Forest, Grass) Scene

MCD43A1/VRI*The error pixels of SGLI data were eliminated in the comparison.
VRI

Standard accuracy01

Target accuracy

20% (Forest, Grass) Scene 10% (Forest, Grass) Scene*1 Results compared with MCD43A1 data, *2 Result compared with in-situ data at Watarase under cloudy condition.

Release threshold is achieved

別1 - 18

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (f) Shadow index (SDI)
Validation Method:-

Comparisons of SGLI-derived SDIs with those derived from in-situ observation data were made for forestand grass areas.

Validation data and condition etc.:-

First, direct solar radiation for each SGLI scene was simulated using the Numerical digital surface model(DSM)*1 (spatial resolution of approx. 50 cm) provided from USGS 3 Dimensional Elevation Programme(3DEP). Second, the areas with zero solar radiation were identified as shadow and integrated to calculate
the areal fraction of shadow within one pixel of SGLI. Then, the areal fraction was used as ground truth.
*1: The DSM was derived from lidar observation data obtained from 2015 to 2018.

-

Only the pixels meeting the following conditions were used for validation;- NDVI > 0.65
- The pixel is not adjacent to cloudy pixels- Satellite zenith angle < 8 deg.
Data for validation

Validation period:- June to October 2018Name

SGLI TILE

Rows x cols

Date of SGLI obs. (# of scenes)

WalnutGulch, AZ

V05H0827 x 76

2018/08/25 – 09/24 (2)Mesa, COV05H0912 x 10

2018/06/18 – 09/24 (10)Olgalake, MI

V04H1118 x 32

2018/06/02 – 10/16 (18)Glacier NP., MT

V04H1035 x 60

2018/06/05 – 09/20 (17)Zion NP., UT

V05H0917 x 142018/06/02 – 09/27 (6)Zion NP. 2, UT

V05H0926 x 35

2018/06/02 – 09/27 (6)別1 - 19

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (f) Shadow index (SDI)

Direct solar radiation simulated from
DSM around Zion NP. site↓
The area with 0 W/m2 is identified as
shadow.

Validation Results:

Simulated direct solar radiation (W/m2)

Location of validation sites

RE:29.7％
DSM (left), NDVI (mid), and SDI (right) at Zion NP. site

Frequency distribution of the differences
between in-situ and SGLI data

Comparison results

Estimated errors

Release threshold

Standard accuracy

Target accuracy

30%

Grass, Forest: 30%

Grass, Forest: 20%

Grass, Forest: 10%

Release threshold is achieved
別1 - 20

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (g) Fraction of absorbed PAR (FAPAR)
Validation Method:-

Comparisons of SGLI-derived FAPARs with those derived from in-situ observation data (PAR meter andspectroradiometer) were made for forest and grass areas.

-

As supplemental data for the in-situ reference, FAPARs obtained from other satellite products(Copernicus/GIOGL1_FAPAR) and those obtained from the literatures published in the past were used.

Validation data and condition etc.:-

Ten-day averages of SGLI FAPAR data were compared with in-situ data assuming that there is no change in
FAPARs during ten days.
Comparisons of SGLI-FAPARs with other satellite products were made for same composite periods and withthe same definition of FAPAR that is the sum of the green FAPARs derived for the upper and lower layers.
Discrimination of forest and grass was done using an existed land cover map (GlobCover).
When comparing SGLI-FAPARS with in-situ derived ones which include the effects of stems and branches,
SGLI-FAPARs were converted to the ones with the same definition as the in-situ data and then compared.
When the temporal period of data acquisition were different between SGLI-FAPARs and in-situ derived ones
including those from the past literatures, the temporal consistency of FAPAR was confirmed using SGLI-NDVI
and other satellite products.

Validation period:-

Sep. 1st to 12th 2018 (vs. GIOGL1_FAPAR).

-

Sep. 1st to 10th*1 2018 (vs. in-situ data and literatures).

-

Apr. 21st to Jul. 31st 2018 (vs. in-situ data obtained at Fujihokuroku (FHK), Watarase (WTR), Takayama (TKY),
Fujiyoshida (FJY)).

*1 When there is no SGLI-derived FAPARs during the period, SGLI data of 10-day before and after the period were used for comparison. Temporal consistencyof FAPAR during the comparison period was confirmed using NDVI and other satellite-derived LAIs.

別1 - 21

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (g) Fraction of absorbed PAR (FAPAR)

Location of in-situ sites and literatures’ sites
PFRR

Validation Results:
Comparison results for green FAPAR of Upper + Lower layer
Grass

ForestMean：0.67
RMSE: 0.13

Comparison results for total
FAPAR (incl. the effects ofstems and branches)

Literature data

Mean：0.36
RMSE: 0.11

URY

TKY

WTR
FHK
FJY

Other satellite: 19.42%:GEOV (num. of plots=9196)

In-situ: 8.16%, Other sat.: 29.19%:GEOV (num. of plots=8883)
× :In-situ (num. of plots=1)

Forest: GlobCover’s forest class
Grass: GlobCover’s grass, sparse vegetation, crop land classes

Forest: 16.79%, Grass: 41.17%※PFRR: Total FAPAR at canopy level: In-situ data
× : Literatures
Forest (num. of plots=8)
Grass (num. of plots=4)

Estimated errors

Release threshold

Standard accuracy

19 (17*1)%
41% [in-situ + literature], 29%[other satellite]

50% (Forest),
50% (Grass)

20% (Forest),
30% (Grass)

Target accuracy
10% (Forest),
20% (Grass)*1 As total FAPAR

Release threshold is achieved
別1 - 22

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (g) Fraction of absorbed PAR (FAPAR)

FAPAR retrieved results (Comparison with other satellite products

FAPAR 01

othersT2A（fapar_MVC）[2018/11/1-11/8]

Copernicus/GIOGL1_LAI300_V1.0.1 [10/20]
MCD15A2H [2018/11/1-11/8]


MCD15A2H: Nov. 1st-8th [8-days composite with maximum FAPAR, 500m]
GIOGL1: Oct. 11th-20th 2018 [10-day composite with MV (vza/sza), 300m]

Spatial distribution of SGLI (T2A) is consistent with other satellite products.

別1 - 23

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (h) Leaf area index (LAI)
Validation Method:-

Comparisons of SGLI-derived LAIs with those derived from in-situ observation data (LAI-2000 andspectroradiometer) were made for forest and grass areas.
As supplemental data for the in-situ reference, LAIs obtained from other satellite products(Copernicus/GIOGL1_LAI) and those obtained from the literatures published in the past were used.

Validation data and condition etc.:--

Ten-day averages of SGLI LAI data were compared with in-situ data assuming that there is no change in LAIs during ten days.
Comparisons of SGLI-LAIs with in-situ data and other satellite products for the confirmation of the release thresholdachievement were made for the total LAI (the sum of LAIs of upper layer and that of lower layers), and also for the upper layer
LAI as a supplemental data at the present. In future, the achievement of the accuracies for the upper layer LAI is a goal of the
SGLI LAI products.
Discrimination of forest and grass was done using an existed land cover map (GlobCover).
When comparing SGLI-FAPARS with in-situ derived ones which include the effects of stems and branches, SGLI-FAPARs wereconverted to the ones with the same definition as the in-situ data and then compared.
When the temporal period of data acquisition were different between SGLI-FAPARs and in-situ derived ones including those fromthe past literatures, the temporal consistency of FAPAR was confirmed using SGLI-NDVI and other satellite products.
In-situ data and other satellite products were used for the total LAI evaluation, and in-situ data and literature data were used forthat of upper layer LAI.
The comparisons with other satellite products were done for the same composition period. When the temporal period of dataacquisition were different between SGLI-LAIs and in-situ derived ones including those from the past literatures, the temporalconsistency of LAI was confirmed using SGLI-NDVI and other satellite products.

Validation period:-

Sep. 1st to 12th 2018 (vs. GIOGL1_LAI).
Sep. 1st to 10th*1 2018 (vs. in-situ data and literatures).
Apr. 21st to Jul. 31st 2018 (vs. in-situ data obtained at Fujihokuroku (FHK), Watarase (WTR).

*1 When there is no SGLI-derived FAPARs during the period, SGLI data of 10-day before and after the period were used for comparison. Temporal consistencyof FAPAR during the comparison period was confirmed using NDVI and other satellite-derived LAIs.

別1 - 24

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (h) Leaf area index (LAI)
Validation Results:

Location of in-situ sites and literatures’ sites
PFRR
BaganuulComparison results for LAI of upper and lower layers
ForestGrass

Other sat.
Mean：3.06 m2/m2
RMSE: 1.52 m2/m2

Comparison results for
LAI f upper layer
Lambir (2 sites)

Other sat.
Mean：1.18 m2/m2
RMSE: 0.74 m2/m2

Literature data

URY

TKY

WTR
FHK

In-situ: 23.57%

In-situ: 15.53%:GEOV (num. of plots=9199)
× :In-situ (num. of plots=3):GEOV (num. of plots=8889)
× : In-situ (num. of plots=3)

Forest: GlobCover’s forest class
Grass: GlobCover’s grass, sparse vegetation, crop land classes

Estimated errors

Release threshold24%(69%*1) [in-situ]
39%[in-situ + literature]

50% (Forest),
50% (Grass)

Forest: 68.52%, Grass: 38.59%: In-situ
× : Literature
Forest (num. of plots=19)
Grass (num. of plots=8)

Standard accuracy

Target accuracy

30% (Forest),
30% (Grass)

20% (Forest),
20% (Grass)*1 As LAI of upper layer (canopy_LAI)

Release threshold is achieved

別1 - 25

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (h) Leaf area index (LAI)

LAI retrieved results (Comparison with other satellite products

LAI [m2/m2] 08othersT2A（fapar_MVC）[2018/11/1-11/8]

Copernicus/GIOGL1_LAI300_V1.0.1 [10/20]
MCD15A2H [2018/11/1-11/8]


MCD15A2H: Nov. 1st-8th [8-days composite with maximum FAPAR, 500m]
GIOGL1: Oct. 11th-20th 2018 [10-day composite with MV (vza/sza), 300m]

Spatial distribution of SGLI (T2A) is consistent with other satellite products.

別1 - 26

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (i) Land surface temperature (LST)
Validation Method:-

Comparisons of SGLI-derived LSTs with other satellite products (MOD11C1: Daily global product of MODIS)
were made using the equation (1) shown below.
Comparisons of SGLI-derived LSTs with those derived from in-situ observation data (brigntness temperature
estimated from the data of thermal radiometer at ground sites taking into account the emissivity of thesurface) were made using the equation (1).

Evaluation variable: 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐾𝐾 =∑ 𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑖 −𝑇𝑇 𝑖𝑖

Validation data and condition etc.:
-

-

𝑁𝑁

2

(1)

N: the number of observation data
S 𝑖𝑖 : SGLI-derived LST
T 𝑖𝑖 : LST derived from in-situ data

When comparing with MOD11C1 (pixel size is approx. 5 km), SGLI LST data of 250 m resolution were averaged to have the same
pixel size. Other conditions for the comparison are the following;
Observation time difference between SGLI and MODIS is less than 10 min.
Valid MODIS LST data: the lowest two bits of the MODIS QC flag are ‘00’.
Valid SGLI LST data (see QA flag and Mask_for_statistics of SGLI products)
In addition, SGLI-derived LST data were compared with in-situ data at Mase and Fujihokuroku (emissivity is assumed to be 0.98
for both sites) which were acquired within the time difference of 15 minitues from the SGLI observations. Other QC conditions
for in-situ data are the following;
Conversion residuals of SGLI are less than 1 Kelvin.
In-situ data are also qualified with the difference of upper andlower radiation fluxes and the variations of the low fluxes within
15 min.

Validation period:-

Aug. 22nd to Sep. 17th 2018 (vs. MOD11C1).
Mar. 14th to Sep. 28th 208 (vs. in-situ data).

別1 - 27

2. Validation Results of Land Products
2.2 (i) Land surface temperature (LST)

Validation Results:
Comparison results with MODIS products (Aug. 27, 2018)

Comparison results with in-situ data
Night

Day

Night

Day

Day + Night

Summary (Aug.22 to Sep.17 2018)
RMSE Ave. [K]
Day
Night
Day + Night

2.95
2.09
2.52

Estimated errors

Release threshold

Standard accuracy

Target accuracy

2.5 [K]@MODIS
2.7 [K]@in-situ< 3.0K< 2.5K< 1.5K

Release threshold is achieved

別1 - 28