Sensitivity of Estimated Total Canopy SIF Emission to Remotely Sensed LAI and BRDF Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote sensing of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) provides new possibilities to estimate terrestrial gross primary production (GPP). To mitigate the angular and canopy structural effects on original SIF observed by sensors (SIF obs ), it is recommended to derive total canopy SIF emission (SIF total ) of leaves within a canopy using canopy interception ( i 0 ) and reflectance of vegetation ( R V ). However, the effects of the uncertainties in i 0 and R V on the estimation of SIF total have not been well understood. Here, we evaluated such effects on the estimation of GPP using the Soil-Canopy-Observation of Photosynthesis and the Energy balance (SCOPE) model. The SCOPE simulations showed that the R 2 between GPP and SIF total was clearly higher than that between GPP and SIF obs and the differences in R 2 ( Δ R 2 ) tend to decrease with the increasing levels of uncertainties in i 0 and R V . The resultant Δ R 2 decreased to zero when the uncertainty level in i 0 and R V was ~30% for red band SIF (RSIF, 683 nm) and ~20% for far-red band SIF (FRSIF, 740 nm). In addition, as compared to the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) SIF obs at both red and far-red bands, SIF total derived using any combination of i 0 (from MCD15, VNP15, and CGLS LAI products) and R V (from MCD34, MCD19, and VNP43 BRDF products) showed comparable improvements in estimating GPP. With this study, we suggest a way to advance our understanding in the estimation of a more physiological relevant SIF datasets (SIF total ) using current satellite products.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".