Katja Berger

Ecology · 2018–2020

A researcher in the Science corpus: 3 papers; trusts 7 researchers and is trusted by 0 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.

Subfields

Whom Katja Berger trusts overall

Their strongest outbound trust, strongest first, inferred from their citations.

  1. W. Verhoef
  2. Jochem Verrelst
  3. Cédric Bacour
  4. Jan G. P. W. Clevers
  5. Jean-Baptiste F'eret
  6. Clement Atzberger
  7. Gregory P. Asner
  8. Gustau Camps-Valls
  9. Wouter A. Dorigo
  10. Alexander Damm

Who trusts Katja Berger overall

  1. Samuel C. Hassler
  2. Jean-Baptiste F'eret
  3. Fulya Baysal-Gurel

Papers from Katja Berger's perspective

Ordered by how strongly the researchers Katja Berger trusts endorse each paper. Same corpus, a different order for every researcher.

  1. Discrete Anisotropic Radiative Transfer (DART 5) for Modeling Airborne and Satellite Spectroradiometer and LIDAR Acquisitions of Natural and Urban Landscapes (Remote Sensing)
  2. Comparison of four radiative transfer models to simulate plant canopies reflectance: direct and inverse mode.
  3. A review on reflective remote sensing and data assimilation techniques for enhanced agroecosystem modeling (International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation)
  4. Third Radiation Transfer Model Intercomparison (RAMI) exercise: Documenting progress in canopy reflectance models
  5. Modeling the impact of spectral sensor configurations on the FLD retrieval accuracy of sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence
  6. Simulation of hyperspectral and directional radiance images using coupled biophysical and atmospheric radiative transfer models
  7. Fluspect-B: a model for leaf fluorescence, reflectance and transmittance spectra.
  8. Multi-method ensemble selection of spectral bands related to leaf biochemistry
  9. Inversion of a radiative transfer model with hyperspectral observations for LAI mapping in poplar plantations
  10. Experimental Sentinel-2 LAI estimation using parametric, non-parametric and physical retrieval methods - A comparison

Their papers