4.7 Article

Estimating chlorophyll concentration in conifer needles with hyperspectral data: An assessment at the needle and canopy level

期刊

REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
卷 112, 期 6, 页码 2824-2838

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2008.01.013

关键词

chlorophyll; conifer; needle reflectance; PROSPECT; LIBERTY; forest health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This investigation quantitatively links chlorophyll a+b (chl(a+b)) concentration, a physiological marker of forest health condition, to hyperspectral observations of Jack Pine (Pinus banksiana), a dominant Boreal forest species. Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager (CASI) observations, in the visible-near infrared domain, were acquired over eight selected Jack Pine sites, near Sudbury, Ontario, between June and September of 2001. Supplementing the airborne campaigns was concurrent on-site collection of foliage samples for laboratory spectral and chemical measurements. The study first connected needle-level optical properties with pigment concentration through the inversion of radiative transfer models, LIBERTY and PROSPECT. Next, a chlorophyll sensitive optical index (R750/R710), was scaled-up using SAILH, a turbid medium canopy model, to estimate total pigment content at the canopy-level. Due to the potential confounding effects of open canopy structure and foliage clumping, the analysis accordingly focused on high spatial resolution CASI imagery (1 m) to visually target tree crowns, while accounting for shadowed areas. Chl(a+b) concentration estimation from airborne spectral data using coupled leaf and canopy models was shown to be feasible with a root mean square error of 5.3 mu g/cm(2), for a pigment range of 25.7 to 45.9 mu g/cm(2). Such predictive algorithms using airborne-level data provide the methodology to be potentially scaled-up to satellite-level hyperspectral platforms for large scale monitoring of vegetation productivity and forest stand condition. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. 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