Zoeken
Zoeken kan via de modus 'eenvoudig zoeken' (één veld) of uitgebreid via 'geavanceerd zoeken' (meerdere velden). Zo kan je bv. zoeken op een combinatie van een auteursnaam (auteur), een jaartal (jaar) en een documenttype.
Boekenmand
Nuttige resultaten kan je aanvinken en toevoegen aan een mandje. De inhoud hiervan kan je exporteren of afdrukken (naar bv. PDF).
RSS
Op de hoogte blijven van nieuw toegevoegde publicaties binnen uw interessegebied? Dit kan door een RSS-feed (?) te maken van jouw zoekopdracht.
nieuwe zoekopdracht
Evaluating different methods for retrieving intraspecific leaf trait variation from hyperspectral leaf reflectance
Helsen, K.; Bassi, L.; Feilhauer, H.; Kattenborn, T.; Matsushima, H.; Van Cleemput, E.; Somers, B.; Honnay, O. (2021). Evaluating different methods for retrieving intraspecific leaf trait variation from hyperspectral leaf reflectance. Ecol. Indic. 130: 108111. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108111
In: Ecological Indicators. Elsevier: Shannon. ISSN 1470-160X; e-ISSN 1872-7034
|   |
| Author keywords |
Intraspecific trait variation; Leaf dry matter content; Leaf mass per area; Leaf water content; Equivalent water thickness; Partial least squares regression (PLSR); PROSPECT |
| Auteurs | | Top |
- Helsen, K.
- Bassi, L.
- Feilhauer, H.
- Kattenborn, T.
|
- Matsushima, H.
- Van Cleemput, E.
- Somers, B.
- Honnay, O.
|
|
| Abstract |
Leaf mass per area (LMA), leaf dry matter content (LDMC) and leaf water content/ equivalent water thickness (EWT) are commonly used functional plant traits in ecology. Whereas spectroscopy has recently proven to be a powerful tool to collect such functional trait information across large scales, it remains unclear whether these reflectance-based trait predictions are accurate enough to reliably model trait variation at the intraspecific level (i.e. across individuals of one species). We explored the potential of hyperspectral leaf reflectance-based methods to predict LMA, LDMC and EWT at the intraspecific level for two herbs (Hieracium umbellatum and Jacobaea vulgaris) and two shrubs (Rosa rugosa and Rubus caesius), based on 2400 leaf samples. More specifically we tested i) inversion of the PROSPECT-D radiative transfer model, ii) a generic PLSR approach using the multibiome LMA PLSR model and iii) a data-specific PLSR approach at the species level. For the latter approach we furthermore assessed both model transferability across species and the trade-off between sample size and model accuracy. Although the PROSPECT-D model inversion and the multibiome LMA PLSR model were relatively accurate for intraspecific LMA predictions of shrubs (R2 > 71 and 76%, respectively, however NRMSE = 33–47%), their performance was lower for herbs (R2 < 61%, NRMSE = 28–50%). PROSPECT-D was furthermore slightly less successful in retrieving EWT at the intraspecific level (R2 < 70%, NRMSE = 16–43%), and unsuccessful in retrieving LDMC through combining LMA and EWT inversion results (R2 < 10%, NRMSE = 9–192%). The highest correlation accuracy was obtained for all three traits with the species-specific PLSR models (R2 > 70%, NRMSE < 10%). If high predictive accuracy is needed, we thus suggest the use of species-specific PLSR models. The training of species-specific PLSR models comes at the cost of a needed sample size of 100–160 leaves however, depending on the trait. Although transferability of species-specific PLSR models seems limited overall, our results suggest potentially high transferability across herbaceous species. |
IMIS is ontwikkeld en wordt gehost door het VLIZ.
