MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205428058 · doi:10.3390/rs14020380

Fractional Vegetation Cover Derived from UAV and Sentinel-2 Imagery as a Proxy for In Situ FAPAR in a Dense Mixed-Coniferous Forest?

2022· article· en· W4205428058 on OpenAlexafffund
Birgitta Putzenlechner, Philip Marzahn, Philipp Koal, Arturo Sánchez‐Azofeifa

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsRemote sensingEnvironmental sciencePhotosynthetically active radiationSatelliteCanopyVegetation (pathology)GeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fraction of absorbed photosynthetic active radiation (FAPAR) is an essential climate variable for assessing the productivity of ecosystems. Satellite remote sensing provides spatially distributed FAPAR products, but their accurate and efficient validation is challenging in forest environments. As the FAPAR is linked to the canopy structure, it may be approximated by the fractional vegetation cover (FCOVER) under the assumption that incoming radiation is either absorbed or passed through gaps in the canopy. With FCOVER being easier to retrieve, FAPAR validation activities could benefit from a priori information on FCOVER. Spatially distributed FCOVER is available from satellite remote sensing or can be retrieved from imagery of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) at a centimetric resolution. We investigated remote sensing-derived FCOVER as a proxy for in situ FAPAR in a dense mixed-coniferous forest, considering both absolute values and spatiotemporal variability. Therefore, direct FAPAR measurements, acquired with a Wireless Sensor Network, were related to FCOVER derived from UAV and Sentinel-2 (S2) imagery at different seasons. The results indicated that spatially aggregated UAV-derived FCOVER was close (RMSE = 0.02) to in situ FAPAR during the peak vegetation period when the canopy was almost closed. The S2 FCOVER product underestimated both the in situ FAPAR and UAV-derived FCOVER (RMSE > 0.3), which we attributed to the generic nature of the retrieval algorithm and the coarser resolution of the product. We concluded that UAV-derived FCOVER may be used as a proxy for direct FAPAR measurements in dense canopies. As another key finding, the spatial variability of the FCOVER consistently surpassed that of the in situ FAPAR, which was also well-reflected in the S2 FAPAR and FCOVER products. We recommend integrating this experimental finding as consistency criteria in the context of ECV quality assessments. To facilitate the FAPAR sampling activities, we further suggest assessing the spatial variability of UAV-derived FCOVER to benchmark sampling sizes for in situ FAPAR measurements. Finally, our study contributes to refining the FAPAR sampling protocols needed for the validation and improvement of FAPAR estimates in forest environments.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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