4.7 Article

Predicting macronutrient concentrations from loblolly pine leaf reflectance across local and regional scales

期刊

GISCIENCE & REMOTE SENSING
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 269-287

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15481603.2014.912875

关键词

remote sensing; spectroradiometer; nutrients; loblolly pine; partial least squares regression; spatial scale

资金

  1. USDA National Needs Fellowship [USDA-NIFA-NNF-2010-03349]
  2. McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program through the USDA CSREES [VA-136614]
  3. Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation at Virginia Tech.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Given the economic importance of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) in the southeastern US, there is a need to establish efficient methods of detecting potential nutrient deficiencies that may limit productivity. This study evaluated the use of remote sensing for macronutrient assessment in loblolly pine. Reflectance-based models were developed at two spatial scales: (1) a natural nutrient gradient across the species' range, and (2) localized fertilization and genotype treatments in North Carolina and Virginia. Fascicles were collected regionally from 237 samples of 3 flushes at 18 sites, and locally from 72 trees with 2 fertilization treatments and 6 genotypes. Sample spectral reflectance was calculated using a spectroradiometer, and nutrient concentrations were measured with dry combustion and wet chemical digestion. Results were analyzed statistically using nutrient correlations with reflectance and common vegetation indices, and partial least squares regression (PLSR). PLSR performed well at the regional scale, with R-2 values for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium of 0.81, 0.70, 0.68, 0.42, and 0.51, respectively. No model successfully predicted nutrients at local sites for any treatment or canopy stratum. This discrepancy implies that a large nutrient range and/or spatial scale may be necessary to model loblolly pine nutrients with spectral reflectance.

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