Abstract

The in situ leaf area index (LAI) measurement plays a vital role in calibrating and validating satellite LAI products. Digital hemispherical photography (DHP) is a widely used in situ forest LAI measurement method. There have been many software programs encompassing a variety of algorithms to estimate LAI from DHP. However, there is no conclusive study for an accuracy comparison among them, due to the difficulty in acquiring forest LAI reference values. In this study, we aim to use virtual (i.e., computer-simulated) broadleaf forests for the accuracy assessment of LAI algorithms in commonly used LAI software programs. Three commonly used DHP programs, including Can_Eye, CIMES, and Hemisfer, were selected since they provide estimates of both effective LAI and true LAI. Individual tree models with and without leaves were first reconstructed based on terrestrial LiDAR point clouds. Various stands were then created from these models. A ray-tracing technique was combined with the virtual forests to model synthetic DHP, for both leaf-on and leaf-off conditions. Afterward, three programs were applied to estimate PAI from leaf-on DHP and the woody area index (WAI) from leaf-off DHP. Finally, by subtracting WAI from PAI, true LAI estimates from 37 different algorithms were achieved for evaluation. The performance of these algorithms was compared with pre-defined LAI and PAI values in the virtual forests. The results demonstrated that without correcting for the vegetation clumping effect, Can_Eye, CIMES, and Hemisfer could estimate effective PAI and effective LAI consistent with each other (R2 > 0.8, RMSD < 0.2). After correcting for the vegetation clumping effect, there was a large inconsistency. In general, Can_Eye more accurately estimated true LAI than CIMES and Hemisfer (with R2 = 0.88 > 0.72, 0.49; RMSE = 0.45 < 0.7, 0.94; nRMSE = 15.7% < 24.21%, 32.81%). There was a systematic underestimation of PAI and LAI using Hemisfer. The most accurate algorithm for estimating LAI was identified as the P57 algorithm in Can_Eye which used the 57.5° gap fraction inversion combined with the finite-length averaging clumping correction. These results demonstrated the inconsistency of LAI estimates from DHP using different algorithms. It highlights the importance and provides a reference for standardizing the algorithm protocol for in situ forest LAI measurement using DHP.

Highlights

  • The leaf area index (LAI), defined as one-half of the total green leaf area per unit horizontal ground surface area [1], is a key vegetation structural parameter influencing the process of photosynthesis, transpiration, and rain interception

  • Without correcting for the clumping effect caused by vegetation non-randomness, the estimates of plant area index (PAI) (PAIeff-est ) were on average 55.8% of the PAItrue-ref values, while the estimates of LAI (LAIeff-est ) were on average 51.22% of LAItrue-ref values

  • The results of this study indicate that the major difference in estimating PAItrue and LAItrue among different software programs (i.e., Can_Eye, CIMES, and Hemisfer) was due to different estimates of the clumping index

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The leaf area index (LAI), defined as one-half of the total green leaf area per unit horizontal ground surface area [1], is a key vegetation structural parameter influencing the process of photosynthesis, transpiration, and rain interception. Digital hemispherical photography (DHP) is widely used for in situ LAI measurement. It obtains photographs of the forest vegetation from the ground looking upward through a fisheye lens. By analyzing these photos, the gap fraction can be determined after separating the foliage from the sky, and LAI can be estimated using the gap fraction model. Compared to other techniques such as LAI-2200 and TRAC (tracing radiation and architecture of canopies), DHP has the advantages of lower costs, enhanced visual inspection of canopies, and a permanent archive that can be reprocessed when refined models become available [4]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.