4.7 Article

Retrieval of remotely sensed LAI using Landsat ETM plus data and ground measurements of solar radiation and vegetation structure: Implication of leaf inclination angle

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jag.2013.02.006

关键词

Birch; Landsat E'TM; LAI; Radiative transfer model; Germany

资金

  1. DFG (German Research Foundation)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A time series of leaf area index (LAI) of a managed birch forest in Germany (near Dresden) has been developed based on 16-day normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) data from the Landsat ETM+ sensor at 30 m resolution. The Landsat ETM+ LAI was retrieved using a modified physical radiative transfer (RTM) model which establishes a relationship between LAI, fractional vegetation cover (fC), and given patterns of surface reflectance, view-illumination conditions and optical properties of vegetation. In situ measurements of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and vegetation structure parameters using hemispherical photography (HSP) served for calibration of model parameters, while data from litter collection at the study site provided the ground-based estimates of LAI for validation of modelling results. Influence of view-illumination conditions on optical properties of canopy was simulated by a view angle geometry model incorporating the solar zenith angle and the sensor viewing angle. Effects of intra-annual and inter-annual variability of structural properties of the canopy on the light extinction coefficient were simulated by implementing variability of the leaf inclination angle (LIA), which was confirmed in the study site. The results revealed good compatibility of the produced Landsat ETM+ LAI data set with the litter-estimated LAI. The results also showed high sensitivity of the LAI retrieval algorithm to variability of structural properties of the canopy: the implementation of LIA dynamics into the LAI retrieval algorithm significantly improved the model accuracy. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据