2006
DOI: 10.1109/tgrs.2005.860489
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of geometrical factors on crop backscattering at C-band

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
27
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
1
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From the figure, it can be seen that the values of the backscattering coefficient change ~6 dB from normal condition (green) to burned condition (red). This increase in the observed σ 0 values with increasing vegetation density is not unexpected, and it was also observed for natural vegetation in [17] and for crops in [18]. Since the images ENL is ~21, this change cannot be attributed to speckle fluctuations, and should be related to changes in the phenological/hydrological condition of the marsh.…”
Section: Estimation Of the Reduction Of Junco Plant Densitysupporting
confidence: 66%
“…From the figure, it can be seen that the values of the backscattering coefficient change ~6 dB from normal condition (green) to burned condition (red). This increase in the observed σ 0 values with increasing vegetation density is not unexpected, and it was also observed for natural vegetation in [17] and for crops in [18]. Since the images ENL is ~21, this change cannot be attributed to speckle fluctuations, and should be related to changes in the phenological/hydrological condition of the marsh.…”
Section: Estimation Of the Reduction Of Junco Plant Densitysupporting
confidence: 66%
“…As for agricultural areas, we have considered typical characteristics (e.g., leaf and stem dimensions, plant height and density) of crops (Ferrazzoli et al, 2000;Della Vecchia et al, 2006), whereas for forests, biomasses of 25 t ha −1 and 50 t ha −1 have been considered. Note that a more accurate discrimination of vegetation types than a simple distinction between crops and forests would have required the use of detailed maps, generally unavailable in operative applications.…”
Section: The Model-based Fuzzy Thresholdsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nonetheless, the general consensus from the literature is that low incidence angles, long wavelengths (L-band) and either HH or HV polarisation are the pre-eminent sensor parameters for soil moisture estimation. To take account of the various sensor configurations and surface parameters, many backscattering models [11,56,57] have been developed over the past 30 years to help determine the relationship between the radar signal and certain biophysical parameters, where numerous studies have been carried out to further the understanding of the effect of surface roughness [58][59][60] and vegetation [60][61][62][63] in soil moisture estimation. These models are generally categorised into three groups; theoretical, empirical and semi-empirical models.…”
Section: Factors Affecting the Microwave Signalmentioning
confidence: 99%