Estimating leaf inclination angle distribution of broad-leaved trees in each part of the canopies by a high-resolution portable scanning lidar

Journal of Agricultural Meteorology

Volumn 71, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 136-141

  Hosoi, Fumiki ^a   Omasa, Kenji ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

3 D; Broad leaved tree; Canopy; Leaf inclination angle; Portable scanning lidar

Indexed keywords

CAMELLIA JAPONICA; CAMELLIA SASANQUA; OSMANTHUS FRAGRANS;

EID: 84930723622     PISSN: 00218588     EISSN: 18810136     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2480/agrmet.D-14-00049     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Barradas, V. L., Jones, H. G., and Clark, J. A., 1999: Leaf orientation and distribution in a Phaseolus vulgaris L. crop and their relationship to light microclimate. International Journal of Bio-meteorology, 43, 64–70.
2. Besl, P. J., and McKay, N. D., 1992: A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14, 239–256.
3. Côté, J. F., Widlowski, J. L., Fournier, R. A., and Verstraete, M. M., 2009: The structural and radiative consistency of three-dimensional tree reconstructions from terrestrial lidar. Remote Sensing of Environment, 113, 1067–1081.
4. Dassot, M., Constant, T., and Fournier, M., 2011: The use of terrestrial LiDAR technology in forest science: application fileds, benefits and challenges. Annals of Forest Science, 68, 959–974.
5. Gratani, L., and Ghia, E., 2002: Changes in morphological and physiological traits during leaf expansion of Arbutus unedo. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 48, 51–60.
6. Holder, C. D., 2012: The relationship between leaf hydrophobicity, water droplet retention, and leaf angle of common species in a semi-arid region of the western United States. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 152, 11–16.
7. Hosoi, F., and Omasa, K., 2006: Voxel-based 3-D modeling of individual trees for estimating leaf area density using high-resolution portable scanning lidar. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 44, 3610–3618.
8. Hosoi, F., and Omasa, K., 2007: Factors contributing to accuracy in the estimation of the woody canopy leaf-area-density profile using 3D portable lidar imaging. Journal of Experimental Botany, 58, 3464–3473.
9. Hosoi, F., and Omasa, K., 2009: Detecting seasonal change of broad-leaved woody canopy leaf area density profile using 3D portable LIDAR imaging. Functional Plant Biology, 36, 998– 1005.
10. Hosoi, F., and Omasa, K., 2012: Estimation of vertical plant area density profiles in a rice canopy at different growth stages by high-resolution portable scanning lidar with a lightweight mirror. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 74, 11–19.
11. Hosoi, F., Ueno, S., Mizuki, S., and Omasa, K., 2014: Estimation of leaf area density profiles of Ginkgo trees by the ground and high position measurements using a portable scanning lidar. Eco-engineering, 26, 45–49.
12. Hosoi, F., Nakai, Y., and Omasa, K., 2009: Estimating the leaf inclination angle distribution of the wheat canopy using a portable scanning lidar. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology, 65, 297–302.
13. Hosoi, F., Nakabayashi, K., and Omasa, K., 2011: 3-D modeling of tomato canopies using a high-resolution portable scanning lidar for extracting structural information. Sensors, 11, 2166–2174.
14. Kobayashi, H., and Iwabuchi, H., 2008: A coupled 1-D atmosphere and 3-D canopy radiative transfer model for canopy reflectance, light environment, and photosynthesis simulation in a heterogeneous landscape. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112, 173–185.
15. Medina, E., Sobrado, M., and Herrera, R., 1978: Significance of leaf orientation for leaf temperature in an Amazonian sclero-phyll vegetation. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 15, 131–140.
16. Muraoka, H., Takenaka, A., Tang, Y., Koizumi, H., and Wash-itani, I., 1998: Flexible leaf orientations of Arisaema hetero-phyllum maximize light capture in a forest understorey and avoid excess irradiance at a deforested site. Annals of Botany, 82, 297–307.
17. Niinemets, Ü., 2010: A review of light interception in plant stands from leaf to canopy in different plant functional types and in species with varying shade tolerance. Ecological Research, 25, 693–714.
18. Niinemets, Ü., and Fleck, S., 2002: Petiole mechanics, leaf inclination, morphology, and investment in support in relation to light availability in the canopy of Liriodendron tulipifera. Ecophysiology, 132, 21–33.
19. Norman, J. M., and Campbell, G. S., 1989: Canopy structure. In Plant Physiological Ecology: Field Methods and Instrumentation (ed. by Pearcy, R. W., Ehleringer, J., Mooney, H. A., Run-del, P. W.). Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 301–326.
20. Omasa, K., Hosoi, F., and Konishi, A., 2007: 3D lidar imaging for detecting and understanding plant responses and canopy structure. Journal of Experimental Botany, 58, 881–898.
21. Sinoquet, H., Thanisawanyangkura, S., Mabrouk, H., and Kasemsap, P., 1998: Characterization of the light environment in canopies using 3D digitising and image processing. Annals of Botany, 82, 203–212.
22. Utsugi, H., Araki, M., Kawasaki, T., and Ishizuka, M., 2006: Vertical distributions of leaf area and inclination angle, and their relationship in a 46-year-old Chamaecyparis obtusa stand. Forest Ecology and Management, 225, 104–112.
23. Valladares, F., and Pearcy, R.W., 2000. The role of crown architecture for light harvesting and carbon gain extreme light environments assessed with a realistic 3-D model. Anales del Jardín Botánico de Madrid. 58, 4–16.
24. Valladares, F., Ferri-Martinez, E., Balaguer, L., Perez-Corona, E., and Manrique, E., 2000: Low leaf-level response to light and nutrients in Mediterranean evergreen oaks: a conservative resource-use strategy?. New Phytologist, 148, 79–91.
25. Welles J. M., and Norman J. M., 1991: Instrument for indirect measurement of canopy architecture. Agronomy Journal, 83, 818–825.
26. Wu, N., Zhang Y. M., Downing, A., Aanderud, Z. T., Tao, Y., and Williams, S., 2014: Rapid adjustment of leaf angle explains how the desert moss, Syntrichia caninervis, copes with multiple resource limitations during rehydration. Functional Plant Biology, 41, 168–177.