4.7 Article

Estimation and Validation of RapidEye-Based Time-Series of Leaf Area Index for Winter Wheat in the Rur Catchment (Germany)

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 2808-2831

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs70302808

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan through German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Leaf Area Index (LAI) is an important variable for numerous processes in various disciplines of bio- and geosciences. In situ measurements are the most accurate source of LAI among the LAI measuring methods, but the in situ measurements have the limitation of being labor intensive and site specific. For spatial-explicit applications (from regional to continental scales), satellite remote sensing is a promising source for obtaining LAI with different spatial resolutions. However, satellite-derived LAI measurements using empirical models require calibration and validation with the in situ measurements. In this study, we attempted to validate a direct LAI retrieval method from remotely sensed images (RapidEye) with in situ LAI (LAI(destr)). Remote sensing LAI (LAI(rapideye)) were derived using different vegetation indices, namely SAVI (Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index) and NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index). Additionally, applicability of the newly available red-edge band (RE) was also analyzed through Normalized Difference Red-Edge index (NDRE) and Soil Adjusted Red-Edge index (SARE). The LAI(rapideye) obtained from vegetation indices with red-edge band showed better correlation with LAI(destr) (r = 0.88 and Root Mean Square Devation, RMSD = 1.01 & 0.92). This study also investigated the need to apply radiometric/atmospheric correction methods to the time-series of RapidEye Level 3A data prior to LAI estimation. Analysis of the the RapidEye Level 3A data set showed that application of the radiometric/atmospheric correction did not improve correlation of the estimated LAI with in situ LAI.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available