2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107766
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An intensity, image-based method to estimate gap fraction, canopy openness and effective leaf area index from phase-shift terrestrial laser scanning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
26
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, DHP is less suited to denser canopies, which are characterized by smaller gap fraction, as hemisphere portions with no gaps gave undefined results when gap fraction was inverted to estimate PAI. With reference to PAI e , the lower performance of DHP relative to DCP can also be attributed to the lower ability of DHP to detect smaller canopy elements with increasing optical distance, which results in an underestimation of PAI e in comparison with TLS, as observed in a previous study (Grotti et al 2020). The disadvantage of DCP relative to DHP is that estimates of LAI or PAI from DCP require independent measurements of leaf inclination angle to parametrize k. In the case study described, reliable PAI e estimates were obtained from DCP using measured leaf inclination angles collected in sample trees, which indicates a planophile leaf inclination distribution; however, closer inspection of the results suggested that sparser canopies have more inclined leaves, whereas denser canopies have more horizontal (planophile) distribution.…”
Section: Outlining Strategies For Sampling Overstory Canopymentioning
confidence: 66%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Therefore, DHP is less suited to denser canopies, which are characterized by smaller gap fraction, as hemisphere portions with no gaps gave undefined results when gap fraction was inverted to estimate PAI. With reference to PAI e , the lower performance of DHP relative to DCP can also be attributed to the lower ability of DHP to detect smaller canopy elements with increasing optical distance, which results in an underestimation of PAI e in comparison with TLS, as observed in a previous study (Grotti et al 2020). The disadvantage of DCP relative to DHP is that estimates of LAI or PAI from DCP require independent measurements of leaf inclination angle to parametrize k. In the case study described, reliable PAI e estimates were obtained from DCP using measured leaf inclination angles collected in sample trees, which indicates a planophile leaf inclination distribution; however, closer inspection of the results suggested that sparser canopies have more inclined leaves, whereas denser canopies have more horizontal (planophile) distribution.…”
Section: Outlining Strategies For Sampling Overstory Canopymentioning
confidence: 66%
“…These improvements notwithstanding, canopy photography still has some major issues associated with the lack of standardization in field protocols, the dependence of the results on sky conditions, and camera exposure. Although recent and future advances in raw photography may greatly reduce the issue of camera exposure (Macfarlane et al 2014;Hwang et al 2016;Grotti et al 2020), the current main challenges in using canopy photography are as follows.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations