Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-r6c6k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T14:48:09.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Investigating the bias of TanDEM-X digital elevation models of glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau: impacting factors and potential effects on geodetic mass-balance measurements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2021

Jia Li
Affiliation:
School of Geosciences and Info-Physics, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China Laboratory of GeoHazards Perception, Cognition and Predication, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
Zhi-Wei Li*
Affiliation:
School of Geosciences and Info-Physics, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
Jun Hu*
Affiliation:
School of Geosciences and Info-Physics, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
Li-Xin Wu
Affiliation:
School of Geosciences and Info-Physics, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China Laboratory of GeoHazards Perception, Cognition and Predication, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
Xin Li
Affiliation:
Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
Lei Guo
Affiliation:
School of Geosciences and Info-Physics, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China Laboratory of GeoHazards Perception, Cognition and Predication, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
Zhuo Liu
Affiliation:
School of Geosciences and Info-Physics, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
Ze-Lang Miao
Affiliation:
School of Geosciences and Info-Physics, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China Laboratory of GeoHazards Perception, Cognition and Predication, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
Wei Wang
Affiliation:
School of Geosciences and Info-Physics, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China Laboratory of GeoHazards Perception, Cognition and Predication, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
Jun-Li Chen
Affiliation:
Shanghai Institute of Satellite Engineering, Shanghai 200090, China
*
Authors for correspondence: Zhi-Wei Li, E-mail: zwli@csu.edu.cn; Jun Hu, E-mail: csuhujun@csu.edu.cn
Authors for correspondence: Zhi-Wei Li, E-mail: zwli@csu.edu.cn; Jun Hu, E-mail: csuhujun@csu.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The TanDEM-X DEM is a valuable data source for estimating glacier mass balance. However, the accuracy of TanDEM-X elevation over glaciers can be affected by microwave penetration and phase decorrelation. To investigate the bias of TanDEM-X DEMs of glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau, these DEMs were subtracted from SPOT-6 DEMs obtained around the same time at two study sites. The average bias over the studied glacier areas in West Kunlun (175.0 km2) was 2.106 ± 0.012 m in April 2014, and it was 1.523 ± 0.011 m in Geladandong (228.8 km2) in October 2013. By combining backscatter coefficients and interferometric coherence maps, we found surface decorrelation and baseline decorrelation can cause obvious bias in addition to microwave penetration. If the optical/laser data and winter TanDEM-X data were used as new and historic elevation sources for mass-balance measurements over an arbitrary observation period of 10 years, the glacier mass loss rates in West Kunlun and Geladandong would be potentially underestimated by 0.218 ± 0.016 and 0.158 ± 0.011 m w.e. a−1, respectively. The impact is therefore significant, and users should carefully treat the bias of TanDEM-X DEMs when retrieving a geodetic glacier mass balance.

Information

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Measurements of the bias of TanDEM-X elevations over glaciers

Figure 1

Fig. 1. (a) Topography and glacier distribution on the Tibetan Plateau. The main glacierised mountain ranges in and surrounding the Tibetan Plateau are denoted with yellow text. The background is a 3 arc-second SRTM C-band DEM. Red rectangles denote the locations of the areas shown in (b) and (c). (b) Landsat-8 image (RGB bands: 432, 14 July 2018) showing part of the main ridge in the West Kunlun Mountain Range. (c) Landsat-8 image (RGB bands: 432, 25 July 2019) showing part of the Geladandong massif in the Dangula Mountain Range. Rectangles of black dashes in (b) and (c) denote areas where the SPOT-6 and TanDEM-X images overlap, i.e. our study areas. The yellow glacier outlines in (b) and (c) were acquired from the second Chinese Glacier Inventory. (d) SPOT-6 image (RGB bands: 123, 10 April 2014) at site 1. (e) SPOT-6 image (RGB bands: 123, 6 October 2013) at site 2. The yellow glacier outlines in (d) and (e) are updated based on the SPOT-6 images.

Figure 2

Table 2. TanDEM-X and SPOT-6 images used in this study

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Procedure of generating a new TanDEM-X DEM.

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Improvement to the elevation difference map of site 2 (SPOT-6 DEM on 6/10/2013 minus the TanDEM-X DEM on 2/10/2013). (a) Raw elevation difference map. (b) Elevation difference map after DEM co-registration. (c) Elevation difference map after planimetric position-related bias correction. (d) Elevation difference map after the second round of DEM co-registration. (e) Elevation difference map after terrain curvature-related bias correction. White areas represent gaps in the elevation difference maps. The red ellipses in (d) mark non-glacierised areas with bias correction. The location of the study area shown here is marked by the black dashed rectangle in Fig. 1c.

Figure 5

Fig. 4. Universal bias trends fitted for the elevation differences over stable areas in site 2. (a) Scatter plot between the ratio of the raw elevation difference over the tangent of the slope [dh/tan(slope)] and the terrain aspect. The red curve is the fitted model (cosine function). (b) Three-dimensional view of the scatter plot of the elevation difference (after the first round of DEM co-registration) vs the planimetric position. The surface is the fitted trend obtained using a quadratic polynomial. (c) Scatter plot between the ratio in the elevation difference (after the first round of DEM co-registration and correction of planimetric error) to the tangent of the slope [dh/tan(slope)] and the terrain aspect. The red curve is the fitted model (cosine function). (d) Scatter plot of the elevation difference (after two rounds of DEM co-registration and correction of planimetric error) vs the terrain maximum curvature. The red curve is the fitted trend obtained using a third-order polynomial.

Figure 6

Table 3. Statistics of the elevation differences over stable areas in Figure 4

Figure 7

Fig. 5. Backscatter coefficient of the TanDEM-X image for the largest glacier in site 1 on 16 April 2014 (CGI-2 ID: 5Y641J0199). Red lines are manually delineated glacier firn line and black arrows denote the approximate ice flow directions. The white areas within the glacier outline denote gaps in the data.

Figure 8

Table 4. Statistics of the elevation difference observations over the stable regions

Figure 9

Fig. 6. Observed bias of the TanDEM-X DEMs for site 1 (a) and site 2 (b). Backgrounds are presented by SPOT-6 images (RGB: bands 123) acquired on 10 April 2014 (a) and 6 October 2013 (b). The areas where the background image can be seen are gaps in the data. Numbers 1–5 mark the glaciers mentioned in the text. Regions A and B (within the red ellipses) denote the non-glacierised slopes and fresh snow packs mentioned in Section 5, respectively.

Figure 10

Fig. 7. Glacier area and average TanDEM-X elevation bias (error bar: 1 std dev.) for every 10-m altitude band. (a) Site 1. (b) Site 2. The red lines denote the altitudes of the average firn lines.

Figure 11

Fig. 8. Backscatter coefficients (unit: decibel) (a) and interferometric coherence (b) of the TanDEM-X bistatic image (16 April 2014) in site 1. Background is presented by a SPOT-6 image (RGB: bands 123, 10 April 2014). The radar flying and looking directions are denoted by the red arrows. The areas where the background can be seen are gaps in the data. Numbers 1–5 mark the glaciers mentioned in the text.

Figure 12

Fig. 9. Average TanDEM-X elevation bias, average backscatter coefficient (unit: decibel) of the TanDEM-X bistatic image (a), and average interferometric coherence of the TanDEM-X bistatic image pair (b) within every 10-m altitude band for glaciers 1–5 in site 1. The TanDEM-X image was acquired on 16 April 2014.

Figure 13

Fig. 10. NDWI computed from the multispectral bands of the SPOT-6 image (10 April 2014) of site 1. Numbers 1–5 mark the glaciers mentioned in the text.

Figure 14

Fig. 11. Baseline correlation of the TanDEM-X interferometric phase in site 1 (16 April 2014). Values of 0 and 1 denote the lowest and highest baseline correlations, respectively.

Figure 15

Table 5. Recent High-mountain Asia glacier mass-balance measurements

Supplementary material: File

Li et al. supplementary material

Li et al. supplementary material

Download Li et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.4 MB