4.7 Article

Forest Canopy Water Content Monitoring Using Radiative Transfer Models and Machine Learning

期刊

FORESTS
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f14071418

关键词

canopy water content; MODIS; random forest; copula; Google Earth Engine

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forests face threats like drought in the context of global climate change. Canopy water content (CWC) serves as an important indicator for forest water stress, mortality, and fire monitoring. This study used radiative transfer models and the random forest algorithm to retrieve forest CWC in the contiguous U.S. The results demonstrated that accurate simulation of leaf traits and canopy structure leads to improved CWC inversion. The study highlights the suitability of 3D radiative transfer models for canopy parameter inversion.
Forests are facing various threats, such as drought, in the context of global climate change. Canopy water content (CWC) is a crucial indicator of forest water stress, mortality, and fire monitoring. However, previous studies on CWC have not adequately simulated forests with heterogeneous and discontinuous canopy structures. At the same time, there is a lack of field validation. This study retrieved the forest CWC across the contiguous U.S. (CONUS) with coupled radiative transfer models (RTMs) and the random forest (RF) algorithm. A Gaussian copula and prior knowledge were used for model parameterization. The results indicated that more accurate simulations of leaf trait dependencies and canopy structure characteristics lead to better CWC inversion. In addition, GeoSail, coupled with PROSPECT-5B, showed good performance (R-2 = 0.68, RMSE = 0.15 kg m(-2), MAE = 0.12 kg m(-2), rRMSE = 12.78%, Bias = -0.036 kg m(-2)) for forest CWC retrieval. Large variation existed in forest CWC, spatiotemporally, and evergreen needle forest (ENF) showed strong CWC capacity. This study underscores the suitability of 3D RTMs for inversing the parameters of forest canopies.

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