4.7 Article

A Tower-Based Radar Study of Temporal Coherence of a Boreal Forest at P-, L-, and C-Bands and Linear Cross Polarization

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2021.3074098

关键词

Forestry; Coherence; Synthetic aperture radar; Spaceborne radar; Decorrelation; Radar; L-band; BorealScat; boreal forest; C-band; coherence; decorrelation; L-band; P-band; tower

资金

  1. Hildur and Sven Wingquist Foundation for Forest Research
  2. European Space Agency (ESA)
  3. Swedish National Space Agency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents cross-polarized temporal coherence observations of a boreal forest, showing diurnal and seasonal cycles in coherence as well as the limitations it poses in interferometric and tomographic forest applications. The findings will aid in improving spaceborne SAR mission designs, temporal decorrelation modeling, and forest parameter estimation algorithms.
Cross-polarized temporal coherence observations of a boreal forest, acquired using a tower-based radar, are presented in this article. Temporal coherence is analyzed with respect to frequency, temporal baseline, time of day of observation, season, meteorological variables, and biophysical variables. During the summer, P- and L-band temporal coherence exhibited diurnal cycles, which appeared to be due to high rates of transpiration and convective winds during the day. During the winter, freeze-thaw cycles and precipitation resulted in decorrelation. At temporal baselines of seconds to hours, a high temporal coherence was observed even at C-band. The best observation times of the day were midnight and dawn. Temporal coherence is the main limitation of accuracy in interferometric and tomographic forest applications. The observations from this experiment will allow for better spaceborne SAR mission designs for forest applications, better temporal decorrelation modeling, and more accurate forest parameter estimation algorithms using interferometric and tomographic SAR data.

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