2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2016.12.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multiple drivers of seasonal change in PRI: Implications for photosynthesis 2. Stand level

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
45
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
3
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…1S). The temporal changes may be driven by whole-plant growth during the early season, and by drought response for the mid-season decline, consistent with the findings of Gitelson et al (2017b) in annual crops.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…1S). The temporal changes may be driven by whole-plant growth during the early season, and by drought response for the mid-season decline, consistent with the findings of Gitelson et al (2017b) in annual crops.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…At low levels of canopy closure or projected leaf area index -defned as one-sided leaf area per unit ground area -the signature of the soil background has a strong effect on remotely sensed spectra. Low plant cover and canopy architectures that make soil more visible from above can make remotely sensed PRI more dependent on the soil background (Barton and North 2001), weakening or erasing its relationship with leaf-level pigment concentrations and LUE (Soudani et al 2014, Gitelson and Gamon 2015, Gitelson et al 2017b. Abiotic drivers like drought can influence the structure of the canopy by causing mortality, altering phenology, and causing plants to modify their leaf display -for example, by leaf rolling (Kadioglu and Terzi 2007) or assuming more vertical leaf inclinations (Comstock and Mahall 1985, Gamon and Pearcy 1989, Joel et al 1997, which under stressful conditions can help protect the photosynthetic function of the plant (Turgut and Kadioglu 1998, Pearcy et al 2005, Nar et al 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The need to take into account the daily cycle of forest PRI for an improved remote estimate of LUE was recently demonstrated using the two satellites with the MODIS sensor on Aqua and Terra, with different overpass times [9]. The remotely-sensed PRI values corresponding to a specific vegetation type is strongly affected by vegetation structure, observation geometry and the spectral composition of diffuse sky radiation [9,[20][21][22][23][24][25] and, hence, not direct measures of leaf PRI. In a boreal forest, canopy structure does not change on a daily time scale, but illumination geometry and the spectral composition of incident radiation (caused by the varying fraction of diffuse sky radiation dominated by shorter wavelengths) does vary with the solar angle continuously on a clear day.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…R 2 of the relationship PRI versus F v ∕F m increased significantly in stressed leaves (0.32 versus 0.68). Many studies showed that in ecosystems when chlorophyll content changed over a wide range, PRI was highly correlated to chlorophyll variations at both leaf and canopy level, 65,66 and it may be not effective for detecting vegetation photosynthetic efficiency. But PRI acted as a useful index of photosynthetic efficiency in evergreen species when chlorophyll content changed slightly and its variation was quite independent to chlorophyll.…”
Section: Remote Estimation Of Chlorophyll Fluorescence In Stressed Lementioning
confidence: 99%