On the correct estimation of effective leaf area index: does it reveal information on clumping effects?

217 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Variability and bias in active and passive ground-based measurements of effective plant, wood and leaf area index (2018, methodology): “Similar to Woodgate et al. (2015b), Ryu et al. (2010b), our results indicated that the agreement between these instruments does not meet the 5% accuracy specified by WMO (2012).”
Comparison of methods for measuring gap size distribution and canopy nonrandomness at Järvselja RAMI (RAdiation transfer Model Intercomparison) test sites (2011, methodology): “In agreement with previous studies (Gonsamo and Pellikka, 2009; Ryu et al., 2010a,b), ˝CC values tend to underestimate the beyond-shoot clumping.”
Tracking the structural and functional development of a perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium L.) infestation using a multi-year archive of webcam imagery and eddy covariance measurements (2011, background): “The site was subjected to year-round grazing by beef cattle (∼100, i.e. 278 km−2), causing a discontinuous, open pepperweed canopy of varying height (maximum 1 m) and density over bare soil and small patches of short grass (Ryu et al., 2010b).”
Photographic measurement of leaf angles in field crops (2014, methodology): “One potential reason is that eteorology 184 (2014) 137– 146 145 vegetation structure (clumping) increases canopy transmittance mostly in near-zenith directions (Ryu et al., 2010b), thus distorting the slope of G-function calculated from LAI-2000 measurements.”