To provide a reference for canopy parameters inversion, sensitivity analysis of plant canopy parameters based on remote sensing model is a prerequisite for the inversion. Because the local sensitivity analysis do not consider the coupling effect among the parameters, the EFAST (i.e., Extended Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test), a global sensitivity analysis, can be used not only for the analysis of each parameter, but also consider the interacted effect among each parameter. Based on PROSAIL model, the paper focused on the parameters’ sensitivity by using simulated data and EFAST method. The results showed that the EFAST considered not only the contribution of single parameter, but also the interactive effects among each parameter, and four parameters, leaf area index (LAI), leaf mesophyll structure (N), the controller factor of the average leaf slope (LIDFa) and soil moisture condition (psoil) had great effect on the canopy reflectance in the whole wavelength from 400 to 2500 nm than other canopy parameters, and the EFAST method enlarged the contribution of some parameters that had little effects.
The aim of this work is to use narrow band normalized difference vegetation indices to compare the estimations of chlorophyll contents at foliar level and canopy level, through a large number of simulated canopy reflectance spectra under different chlorophyll contents based on PROSPECT model and SAIL model. 10 narrow band NDVIs were selected at the identified ranges that can effectively assess foliar chlorophyll content. We analyzed the correlations between canopy chlorophyll contents and the ten narrow band NDVIs firstly, and then analyze these indices’ sensitivities to all canopy parameters, the adaptation of the 10 narrow band NDVIs used in assessing the canopy chlorophyll content were evaluated finally. We found that only two narrow band NDVIs (i.e., NDVI(875, 725) and NDVI(900,720)) can be applied for the estimation of chlorophyll contents at canopy level.
KEYWORDS: Reflectivity, Vegetation, Data modeling, Remote sensing, Spectroscopy, Ecosystems, Spectral resolution, Data acquisition, Information science, Radiative transfer
The aim of this work is to estimate leaf chlorophyll concentration with 6 different normalized difference vegetation indices (NDVIs) under 4 bandwidths (1, 5, 10 and 20 nm). A popular leaf radiative transfer model(i.e. PROSPECT) was used to simulate the leaf reflectance spectra from 400-800nm under varying chlorophyll concentrations. Then 6 combinations of bands sensitive to chlorophyll concentrations were chosen for the calculation of their NDVIs. Simulated spectral response functions were applied to calculate the synthesis reflectance spectra at the intervals of 5, 10 and 20 nm respectively, and then corresponding NDVIs were calculated. The change of correlation coefficients between the NDVIs and the leaf chlorophyll concentrations were examined. Results showed that some NDVIs had a good performance with increasing bandwidth, whereas response of different NDVIs to the 4 bandwidths were different generally. Our results suggested that the improvement of spectral resolution was not necessary for some NDVIs to estimate leaf chlorophyll.
Leaf pigments are key elements for plant photosynthesis and growth. Traditional manual sampling of these pigments is labor-intensive and costly, which also has the difficulty in capturing their temporal and spatial characteristics. The aim of this work is to estimate photosynthetic pigments at large scale by remote sensing. For this purpose, inverse model were proposed with the aid of stepwise multiple linear regression (SMLR) analysis. Furthermore, a leaf radiative transfer model (i.e. PROSPECT model) was employed to simulate the leaf reflectance where wavelength varies from 400 to 780 nm at 1 nm interval, and then these values were treated as the data from remote sensing observations. Meanwhile, simulated chlorophyll concentration (Cab), carotenoid concentration (Car) and their ratio (Cab/Car) were taken as target to build the regression model respectively. In this study, a total of 4000 samples were simulated via PROSPECT with different Cab, Car and leaf mesophyll structures as 70% of these samples were applied for training while the last 30% for model validation. Reflectance (r) and its mathematic transformations (1/r and log (1/r)) were all employed to build regression model respectively. Results showed fair agreements between pigments and simulated reflectance with all adjusted coefficients of determination (R2) larger than 0.8 as 6 wavebands were selected to build the SMLR model. The largest value of R2 for Cab, Car and Cab/Car are 0.8845, 0.876 and 0.8765, respectively. Meanwhile, mathematic transformations of reflectance showed little influence on regression accuracy. We concluded that it was feasible to estimate the chlorophyll and carotenoids and their ratio based on statistical model with leaf reflectance data.
Remote sensing is an effective tool to estimate foliar pigments contents with the analysis of vegetation index. The crucial issue is how to choose the optimal bands-combination to conduct the vegetation index. In this study, RVI, a vegetation index computed by the reflectance of Red and NIR bands, has been used to estimate the contents of chlorophyll and carotenoid. The reflectance of the two bands forming the narrow band RVI was simulated by the PROSPECT model. The possible combinations of narrow band RVI were examined from 400 nm to 800 nm. The results showed that: At the leaf level, estimation of chlorophyll content can be identified in narrow band RVI. Ranges for these bands included: (1) 549-589nm, 616-636nm or 729-735nm combined with 434-454nm; (2) 663-688nm, 710-717nm, 719-728nm or 730- 739nm combined with 549-561nm; (3) 663-688nm combined with 569-615nm. However, no valid narrow-band RVI for the estimation of carotenoid content was successfully identified. Our results also showed that two rules should be followed when choosing optimal bands-combination: (1) the selected bands must have minimal interference from other biochemical constituents; (2) there should be distinct differences between the sensitivities of the bands selected for particular pigments.
Access to the requested content is limited to institutions that have purchased or subscribe to SPIE eBooks.
You are receiving this notice because your organization may not have SPIE eBooks access.*
*Shibboleth/Open Athens users─please
sign in
to access your institution's subscriptions.
To obtain this item, you may purchase the complete book in print or electronic format on
SPIE.org.
INSTITUTIONAL Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.
PERSONAL Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.