4.6 Article

Antarctic moss stress assessment based on chlorophyll content and leaf density retrieved from imaging spectroscopy data

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 208, 期 2, 页码 608-624

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.13524

关键词

Bryum pseudotriquetrum; Ceratodon purpureus; hyperspectral remote sensing; leaf density (LD); moss chlorophyll content (Cab); Schistidium antarctici; stress imaging spectroscopy; turf water content (TWC)

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP110101714]
  2. Antarctic Science [4046]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The health of several East Antarctic moss-beds is declining as liquid water availability is reduced due to recent environmental changes. Consequently, a noninvasive and spatially explicit method is needed to assess the vigour of mosses spread throughout rocky Antarctic landscapes. Here, we explore the possibility of using near-distance imaging spectroscopy for spatial assessment of moss-bed health. Turf chlorophyll a and b, water content and leaf density were selected as quantitative stress indicators. Reflectance of three dominant Antarctic mosses Bryum pseudotriquetrum, Ceratodon purpureus and Schistidium antarctici was measured during a drought-stress and recovery laboratory experiment and also with an imaging spectrometer outdoors on water-deficient (stressed) and well-watered (unstressed) moss test sites. The stress-indicating moss traits were derived from visible and near infrared turf reflectance using a nonlinear support vector regression. Laboratory estimates of chlorophyll content and leaf density were achieved with the lowest systematic/unsystematic root mean square errors of 38.0/235.2 nmol g(-1) DW and 0.8/1.6 leaves mm(-1), respectively. Subsequent combination of these indicators retrieved from field hyperspectral images produced small-scale maps indicating relative moss vigour. Once applied and validated on remotely sensed airborne spectral images, this methodology could provide quantitative maps suitable for long-term monitoring of Antarctic moss-bed health.

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

4.6
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