4.7 Article

Retrieving vegetation clumping index from-Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) data at 275 m resolution

期刊

REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
卷 138, 期 -, 页码 126-133

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2013.07.014

关键词

Multi-angle remote sensing; MISR; Vegetation clumping index; Hotspot; NDHD

资金

  1. FP7-Marie Curie Actions program, Estonian Science Foundation [ERMOS32]
  2. Canadian Space Agency [11SUSMAPTO]
  3. NSF [BCS-0928352]
  4. Estonian Science Foundation
  5. Ministry of Education and Research [SF0180009B511]
  6. BioAtmos of the Environmental protection and technology research and development program [3.2.0802.11-0043, TAP13-2]
  7. European Union
  8. GSForest
  9. NorSEN project
  10. UEF strategic funds
  11. Office of Science (BER), US Department of Energy [DE-FG02-06ER64308, DE-SC0005130]
  12. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0005130] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clumping index, the measure of foliage grouping relative to a random distribution of leaves in space, is a key structural parameter of plant canopies that influences canopy radiation regimes and controls canopy photosynthesis and other land-atmosphere interactions. In this study, we retrieve the clumping index using the original 275 m resolution data of the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument over a set of sites representing diverse biomes and different canopy structures. Also for the first time, the MISR derived clumping index values are directly validated with both in-situ vertical profiles and seasonal trajectories of clumping index. Our results illustrate that MISR data with 275 m allow clumping index estimates at much more pertinent scales (both spatial and temporal) than previous maps from Polarization and Directionality of Earth Reflectances (POLDER) and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) for modeling local carbon and energy fluxes. (C) 2013 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