4.7 Article

Optimal geometric configuration and algorithms for LAI indirect estimates under row canopies: The case of vineyards

期刊

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY
卷 149, 期 8, 页码 1307-1316

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.03.001

关键词

Vineyard; LAI estimation; Architecture modeling; Hemispherical photographs; LAI2000; Ceptometer

资金

  1. Instituto Nacional de Investigacion y Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA)
  2. Agropolis Fondation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Leaf Area Index (LAI) retrieval performances from gap fraction measurements are investigated over vertically trained vineyards. A 3D vineyard model was constructed to analyze the influence of canopy architecture characteristics and light direction on LAI estimation. Results show that for specific directions - close to zenith and parallel to the rows - gap fraction (P-o) is mainly driven by vineyard architectural characteristics with small effect of LAI due to the clumped foliage distribution. The sensitivity of P-o to LAI is enhanced for directions far from zenith and perpendicular to the rows, resulting in lower uncertainties in LAI retrieval. The 3D vineyard model was used to simulate a range of cases and those findings were supported with two calibrated neural networks to retrieve LAI from P-o measured in several directional configurations. These relationships were tested over independent field experiments conducted on commercial vineyards using either hemispherical photographs or ceptometer. Both experiments highlighted the importance of selecting an appropriate geometrical configuration and introducing information on canopy architecture (canopy height and vegetation width on the row relative to inter-row spacing) to reduce LAI uncertainties associated with vineyard spatial arrangement. For the optimal configurations, estimates of LAI with hemispherical photographs (RMSE = 0.389) and ceptometer (RMSE = 0.27) were obtained and compared to destructive LAI measurements. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. 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