2010Unpublished venueRequires access

The comparison of different methods to measure leaf area index of forests in Maoershan Mountain, Northeastern China

Bailing Xing, Weimin Ju, Gaolong Zhu, Xianfeng Li, Yibo Liu, Yanlian Zhou

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

Different optical instruments are currently available for measuring LAI such as LAI 2000 Plant Canopy Analyser (LAI-2000), Tracing Radiation and Architecture of Canopies (TRAC) and Digital Hemispherical Photography (DHP). Their applicability varies in different ecosystems. This study was devoted to compare LAI measured using four different methods (LAI measured by DHP, LAI measured by TRAC, LAI calculated using effective LAI measured by LAI-2000 and clumping index measured by DHP, and LAI calculated using effective LAI measured by LAI-2000 and clumping index measured by TRAC) in the Maoershan experimental forest farm of Northeast Forestry University located in Shangzhi city of Heilongjiang province. Methods used to measure LAI have considerable effects on observed LAI. The means of LAI measured by four different methods are 3.15, 4.73, 3.97, and 4.24 and corresponding standard deviations are 1.54, 2.39, 1.82, and 1.75, respectively. According to previous studies, the combination of LAI-2000 with TRAC can give the most reliable measurements of LAI. Therefore, DHP tends to underestimate LAI at this area, especially for dense canopies while TRAC tends to overestimate slightly LAI for dense canopies. The fitting of LAI measured using four different methods with normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and reduced simple ratio (RSR) calculated from TM data acquired on June 24, 2009 indicated that RSR is a better predictor of LAI than NDVI in this study area. The agreements between measured and estimated LAI using the best fitted models are 58%, 70%, 57% and 68% for these four different methods. Corresponding root mean square errors (RMSE) are 0.80, 0.85, 0.88, and 0.75, respectively. The regional means of LAI retrieved using the empirical models established on the basis of RSR and LAI measured with four different methods are 3.47, 5.26, 4.31, and 4.68, respectively, indicating that if DHP is used as a surrogate of TRAC and LAI-2000, LAI might be underestimated by about 25.7% in this area.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Different optical instruments are currently available for measuring LAI such as LAI 2000 Plant Canopy Analyser (LAI-2000), Tracing Radiation and Architecture of Canopies (TRAC) and Digital Hemispherical Photography (DHP). Their applicability varies in different ecosystems. This study was devoted to compare LAI measured using four different methods (LAI measured by DHP, LAI measured by TRAC, LAI calculated using effective LAI measured by LAI-2000 and clumping index measured by DHP, and LAI calculated using effective LAI measured by LAI-2000 and clumping index measured by TRAC) in the Maoershan experimental forest farm of Northeast Forestry University located in Shangzhi city of Heilongjiang province. Methods used to measure LAI have considerable effects on observed LAI. The means of LAI measured by four different methods are 3.15, 4.73, 3.97, and 4.24 and corresponding standard deviations are 1.54, 2.39, 1.82, and 1.75, respectively. According to previous studies, the combination of LAI-2000 with TRAC can give the most reliable measurements of LAI. Therefore, DHP tends to underestimate LAI at this area, especially for dense canopies while TRAC tends to overestimate slightly LAI for dense canopies. The fitting of LAI measured using four different methods with normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and reduced simple ratio (RSR) calculated from TM data acquired on June 24, 2009 indicated that RSR is a better predictor of LAI than NDVI in this study area. The agreements between measured and estimated LAI using the best fitted models are 58%, 70%, 57% and 68% for these four different methods. Corresponding root mean square errors (RMSE) are 0.80, 0.85, 0.88, and 0.75, respectively. The regional means of LAI retrieved using the empirical models established on the basis of RSR and LAI measured with four different methods are 3.47, 5.26, 4.31, and 4.68, respectively, indicating that if DHP is used as a surrogate of TRAC and LAI-2000, LAI might be underestimated by about 25.7% in this area.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Different optical instruments are currently available for measuring LAI such as LAI 2000 Plant Canopy Analyser (LAI-2000), Tracing Radiation and Architecture of Canopies (TRAC) and Digital Hemispherical Photography (DHP). Their applicability varies in different ecosystems. This study was devoted to compare LAI measured using four different methods (LAI measured by DHP, LAI measured by TRAC, LAI calculated using effective LAI measured by LAI-2000 and clumping index measured by DHP, and LAI calculated using effective LAI measured by LAI-2000 and clumping index measured by TRAC) in the Maoershan experimental forest farm of Northeast Forestry University located in Shangzhi city of Heilongjiang province. Methods used to measure LAI have considerable effects on observed LAI. The means of LAI measured by four different methods are 3.15, 4.73, 3.97, and 4.24 and corresponding standard deviations are 1.54, 2.39, 1.82, and 1.75, respectively. According to previous studies, the combination of LAI-2000 with TRAC can give the most reliable measurements of LAI. Therefore, DHP tends to underestimate LAI at this area, especially for dense canopies while TRAC tends to overestimate slightly LAI for dense canopies. The fitting of LAI measured using four different methods with normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and reduced simple ratio (RSR) calculated from TM data acquired on June 24, 2009 indicated that RSR is a better predictor of LAI than NDVI in this study area. The agreements between measured and estimated LAI using the best fitted models are 58%, 70%, 57% and 68% for these four different methods. Corresponding root mean square errors (RMSE) are 0.80, 0.85, 0.88, and 0.75, respectively. The regional means of LAI retrieved using the empirical models established on the basis of RSR and LAI measured with four different methods are 3.47, 5.26, 4.31, and 4.68, respectively, indicating that if DHP is used as a surrogate of TRAC and LAI-2000, LAI might be underestimated by about 25.7% in this area.

Key concepts: TRAC, Leaf area index, Canopy, Environmental science, Remote sensing, Atmospheric sciences, Geography, Ecology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The comparison of different methods to measure leaf area index of forests in Maoershan Mountain, Northeastern China — Research Paper | ScholarLens