4.7 Article

Angular Reflectance of Leaves With a Dual-Wavelength Terrestrial Lidar and Its Implications for Leaf-Bark Separation and Leaf Moisture Estimation

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2017.2652140

关键词

Laser radar; remote sensing; technology assessment; vegetation

资金

  1. NERC [NE/K000071/1]
  2. Douglas Bomford Trust
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/K000071/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. NERC [NE/K000071/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new generation of multiwavelength lidars offers the potential to measure the structure and biochemistry of vegetation simultaneously, using range resolved spectral indices to overcome the confounding effects in passive optical measurements. However, the reflectance of leaves depends on the angle of incidence, and if this dependence varies between wavelengths, the resulting spectral indices will also vary with the angle of incidence, complicating their use in separating structural and biochemical effects in vegetation canopies. The Salford Advanced Laser Canopy Analyser ( SALCA) dual-wavelength terrestrial laser scanner was used to measure the angular dependence of reflectance for a range of leaves at the wavelengths used by the new generation of multiwavelength lidars, 1063 and 1545 nm, as used by SALCA, DWEL, and the Optech Titan. The influence of the angle of incidence on the normalized difference index ( NDI) of these wavelengths was also assessed. The reflectance at both wavelengths depended on the angle of incidence and could be well modelled as a cosine. The change in the NDI with the leaf angle of incidence was small compared with the observed difference in the NDI between fresh and dry leaves and between leaf and bark. Therefore, it is concluded that angular effects will not significantly impact leaf moisture retrievals or prevent leaf/bark separation for the wavelengths used in the new generation of 1063- and 1545-nm multiwavelength lidars.

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