MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162408390 · doi:10.3390/rs13091830

Retrieval of Arctic Vegetation Biophysical and Biochemical Properties from CHRIS/PROBA Multi-Angle Imagery Using Empirical and Physical Modelling

2021· article· en· W3162408390 on OpenAlexaffabout
Blair E. Kennedy, Douglas J. King, Jason Duffe

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceArcticVegetation (pathology)Hyperspectral imagingArctic vegetationLeaf area indexTundraGeologyEcologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mapping and monitoring of Arctic vegetation biochemical and biophysical properties is gaining importance as global climate change is disproportionately affecting this region. Previous studies using remote sensing to model Arctic vegetation biochemical and biophysical properties have generally involved empirical modelling with nadir looking broadband sensors and have typically been conducted at the field scale in one study area. Satellite hyperspectral remote sensing has not been previously investigated for retrieving leaf and canopy biochemical and biophysical properties of Arctic vegetation across multiple sites using either empirical or physically-based modelling approaches. Furthermore, multi-angle hyperspectral sensors (CHRIS/PROBA), which can provide insight into vegetation reflectance anisotropy and potentially improve vegetation parameter estimation, have also not been investigated for this purpose. In this study, three modelling approaches previously investigated with field spectroscopy data (Kennedy et al., 2020) were used with CHRIS Mode-1 imagery to predict leaf chlorophyll content, plant area index and canopy chlorophyll content across a bioclimatic gradient in the Western Canadian Arctic. Modelling approaches included: parametric linear regression based on vegetation indices (VI), non-parametric machine learning Gaussian processes regression (GPR) and inversion of the PROSAIL radiative transfer model using a look-up table approach (LUT). CHRIS imagery was acquired with −55°, −36°, 0°, +36°, +55° view zenith angles (VZA) between 2011 and 2014 over three field sites extending from the Richardson Mountains in central Yukon, Canada to the north end of Banks Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. Field measurements were acquired within several weeks of satellite acquisitions. GPR had the best model fit (mean cross-validated (cv) coefficient of determination, r2cv = 0.61 across all vegetation variables, sites and VZAs vs. 0.59 for the simple ratio, SR) and predictive performance (normalized root mean square error, NRMSEcv = 0.13 vs. 0.14 for SR). The revised optimized soil adjusted VI (ROSAVI) performance was slightly poorer (r2cv = 0.51; NRMSEcv = 0.15). The physically-based PROSAIL model performed poorer than all empirical models (r2 = 0.50; NRMSE = 0.18). This ranking of model performance is similar to that found in the previous field spectroscopy study, where empirical model fits and predictive performance were only slightly worse. With respect to view angle performance, NRMSE varied only slightly, indicating no distinct advantage for any one VZA. Overall, strong potential has been demonstrated for empirical modelling of Arctic vegetation chlorophyll and plant area index using hyperspectral data combined with band selection/optimization procedures in the Arctic. Recently launched and future hyperspectral satellites, including next generation airborne sensors, will likely provide improvements to the model performance reported here.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207