4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Model inversion for chlorophyll estimation in open canopies from hyperspectral imagery

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
Volume 29, Issue 17-18, Pages 5093-5111

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01431160802036458

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council [earth010002, earth010004] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. NERC [earth010004, earth010002] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents the results of estimation of leaf chlorophyll concentration through model inversion, from hyperspectral imagery of artificially treated orchard crops. The objectives were to examine model inversion robustness under changing viewing conditions, and the potential of multi-angle hyperspectral data to improve accuracy of chlorophyll estimation. The results were compared with leaf chlorophyll measurements from laboratory analysis and field spectroscopy. Two state-of-the-art canopy models were compared. The first is a turbid medium canopy reflectance model (MCRM) and the second is a 3D model (FLIGHT). Both were linked to the PROSPECT leaf model. A linear regression using a single band was also performed as a reference. The different techniques were able to detect nutrient deficiencies that caused stress from the hyperspectral data obtained from the airborne AHS sensor. However, quantitative chlorophyll retrieval was found largely dependent on viewing conditions for regression and the turbid medium model inversion. In contrast, the 3D model was successful for all observations. It offers a robust technique to extract chlorophyll quantitatively from airborne hyperspectral data. When multi-angular data were combined, the results for both the turbid medium and 3D model increased. Final RMSE values of 5.8 mu g cm(-2) (MCRM) and 4.7 mu g cm(-2) (FLIGHT) were obtained for chlorophyll retrieval on canopy level.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available