Note on the compatibility of ICOS, NEON, and TERN sampling designs, different camera setups for effective plant area index estimation with digital hemispherical photography-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Note on the compatibility of ICOS, NEON, and TERN sampling designs, different camera setups for effective plant area index estimation with digital hemispherical photography

Published:2023-12-01 Issue:1 Volume:79 Page:21-36
ISSN:1736-8723
Container-title:Forestry Studies
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Kaha Mihkel¹,Lang Mait¹²,Zhang Shaohui³,Pisek Jan¹

Affiliation:

1. Tartu Observatory, University of Tartu , Tõravere , Estonia

2. Institute of Forestry and Engineering , Estonian University of Life Sciences , Kreutzwaldi 5 , Tartu , Estonia

3. School of Forest Sciences , University of Eastern Finland , Yliopistokatu 7 , Joensuu , Finland

Abstract

Abstract Environmental monitoring networks such as the Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS) in Europe, the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) in the U.S., or the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN) in Australia deploy different sampling schemes for in situ measurements. We report on the intercomparison of measurements of the canopy gap fraction with different digital hemispherical photography setups adopting ICOS, NEON, and TERN sampling schemes. The test was carried out at the Järvselja Radiation Transfer Model Intercomparison (RAMI) birch stand. Results show that spreading out sampling points which cover more of the plot is important for a good representation of the forest as a whole. The NEON tower plot layout scheme may be more prone to errors in overall canopy properties estimation than ICOS or TERN due to its compact sampling layout and should always be used in conjunction with its distributed plots. Different camera setups involving different camera operators, camera bodies, lenses and settings yield slightly varied results, and it is important to ensure that the images are taken in such a way that they would not be over or underexposed, or out of focus. As a conclusion we recommend always to carry out intercomparison measurements with old and new cameras when devices are upgraded. Our study contributes towards establishing the uncertainty and evaluating potential error budget stemming from collecting in situ measurements using different sampling schemes and camera setups.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Link

https://www.sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/fsmu-2023-0010

Reference28 articles.

1. Brown, L.A., Meier, C., Morris, H., Pastor-Guzman, J., Bai, G., Lerebourg, C., Gobron, N., Lanconelli, C., Clerici, M., Dash, J. 2020. Evaluation of global leaf area index and fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation products over North America using Copernicus Ground Based Observations for Validation data. – Remote Sensing of Environment, 247, 111935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111935.

2. Calders, K., Origo, N., Disney, M., Nightingale, J., Woodgate, W., Armston, J., Lewis, P. 2018. Variability and bias in active and passive ground-based measurements of effective plant, wood and leaf area index. – Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 252, 231–240.

3. Cescatti, A. 2007. Indirect estimates of canopy gap fraction based on the linear conversion of hemispherical photographs: Methodology and comparison with standard thresholding techniques. – Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 143, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.04.009.

4. Chen, J.M. 1996. Optically-based methods for measuring seasonal variation of leaf area index in boreal conifer stands. – Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 80(2–4), 135–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(95)02291-0.

5. Chen, J.M., Black, T.A. 1992. Defining leaf area index for non-flat leaves. – Plant, Cell & Environment, 15(4), 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1992.tb00992.x.