NASA N85-30450

Reference
Publication
1139

1985

Spectral Reflectances of
Natural Targets for Use
in Remote Sensing Studies

David E. Bowker
and Richard E. Davis
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia

David L. Myrick,
Kathryn Stacy,
and William T. Jones
Computer Sciences Corporation
Hampton, Virginia

fU/ A
National Aeronautics
and Space Administration

Scientific and Technical

Information Branch
i
 1. Report No. I 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
NASA RP- 1139 i
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Spectral Reflectances of Natural Targets for June 1985

Use in Remote Sensing Studies
6. Performing Organization Code

619-12-30-03
7. Author(s)

David E. Bowker, Richard E. Davis, David L. Myriek, 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Kathryn Stacy, and William T. Jones L-15920

9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Work Unit No.
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23665 II. Contract or Grant No.

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Reference Publication

Washington, DC 20546 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

David E. Bowker and Richard E. Davis: Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia.
David L. Myrick, Kathryn Stacy, and William T. Jones: Computer Sciences Corporation, Hampton,
Virginia.

16. Abstract

A collection of spectral reflectances of 156 natural targets is presented in a uniform format. For each target
both a graphical plot and a digital tabulation of reflectance is given. The data were taken from the literature
and include laboratory, field, and aircraft measurements. A discussion of the different measurements of
reflectance is given, along with the changes in apparent reflectance when targets are viewed through the
atmosphere. The salient features of the reflectance curves of common target types are presented and
discussed.

17. Key Words (Suggested by Authors(s)) 18. Distribution Statement

Spectral reflectances Unclassified--Unlimited
Reflectance measurements
Reflectances of natural targets
Reflectances of Earth features
Radiative transfer
Subject Category 43
19. Security Classif.(of this report)
Unclassified 20. Unclassified
Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22.Price
184 A09

For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
NASA-Langley, 1985
 Contents

Introduction ................................ 1

Symbols and Units ............................. 1

Measurement of Reflectance ......................... 2

Laboratory Measurements ......................... 2
Field Measurements ........................... 2
Aircraft Measurements .......................... 3

General Features of Reflectance Curves .................... 4

Vegetation ................................ 4
Soil ................................... 5
Rocks and Minerals ............................ 5
Water, Snow, and Clouds ......................... 8

Selection and Formatting of the Spectral Reflectance Data ............ 8

Concluding Remarks ............................ 9

Appendix--Atmospheric Effects on Reflectance Profiles ............. 10

Factors Affecting Apparent Reflectance Determination ............ 13
Correction for Atmospheric Effects ..................... 16

References ................................. 18

Spectral Reflectance Data .......................... 21

Index of Spectral Reflectance Targets .................... 21
Reference Sources for Spectral Reflectance Data ............... 23
Graphs and Tables of Spectral Reflectances ................. 26

ORECEDING PAG'E BLANK NOT FCMI_

Preceding
pageblank iii
Introduction uments and archived on magnetic tape for further
processing. Each reflectance curve presented repre-
Remote sensing studies devoted to the develop- sents the data originally shown by the author. A test
ment of spacecraft sensors have need of a representa- of the data transcription method indicated an error
tive selection of spectral reflectances of natural tar- of less than 1 percent in the digitization process.
gets in order to determine the optimum number and
location of spectral bands and sensitivity require- Symbols and Units
ments. For example, Schappell et al. (1976) uti-
Ed diffuse component of irradiance at the
lized reflectances of ground features in the design
Earth's surface, watts-m -2
of a video guidance, landing, and imaging system
for space missions; Begni (1982) selected the spec- Eo solar irradiance at the top of the atmo-
tral bands for the SPOT satellite by taking into ac-
sphere, watts-m -2
count both the spectral signatures of ground objects
and the modifications introduced by the atmosphere; Eo8 direct solar component of irradiance at
and Huck et al. (1984) studied spacecraft sensor re- the Earth's surface, watts-m -2
sponses and data processing algorithms for identify-
ing Earth features by using a selection of spectral E8 irradiance at the Earth's surface, watts-
reflectances taken from the literature. Although sev- m-2
eral excellent sources of reflectance data are avail-
FOV field-of-view, deg
able, such as the agricultural data base from Pur-
due University Laboratory for Applications of Re- H sensor altitude, km
mote Sensing (Biehl et al. 1982) and the geologic data
IFOV instantaneous field-of-view, deg
base from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Kahle et
al. 1981), these data bases are limited in target se- LB beam radiance component of LT, watts-
lection and are usually available only in computer m-2_sr-1
compatible format. Thus there is a need for a set
of reflectance data that is representative of natural Lp path radiance component of LT, watts-
m-2_sr-1
targets. The purpose of this report is to present a
collection of uniformly digitized spectral reflectances
Ls surface radiance, watts-m-2-sr -1
of natural targets in a common format.
The spectral reflectance data were taken from the LT total radiance measured at the instru-
literature and include laboratory, field, and aircraft ment, watts-m-2-sr -1
measurements. Since the reflectance of most natu-
R bidirectional reflectance factor
ral targets may be influenced by the measurement
technique, the techniques for the measurement of re- Rr bidirectional reflectance factor of
flectance are discussed with emphasis on their major reference
differences and sources of error. Most of the data
Rt bidirectional reflectance factor of target
have been derived from laboratory or field measure-
ments. There is much interest, however, in the re- T transmittance of atmosphere along
mote sensing of natural targets from both airborne target-to-sensor path
and spaceborne platforms. Therefore, the appendix
discusses the changes in apparent reflectance when a TOA top of atmosphere
target is viewed through the atmosphere. V atmospheric visual range, km
The target reflectances have been divided into six
Vr instrument response when viewing
categories: agriculture; trees; shrubs and grasses;
reference
rocks and soils; water, snow, and clouds; and mis-
cellaneous. The 156 reflectance curves included are a instrument response when viewing target
representation of what is available in the literature;
0i irradiance zenith angle, deg
they are not necessarily the most preferred sets of
data for a listing of this kind. There is a similarity Or reflected beam zenith angle, deg
among reflectances of many of the targets, and thus
A wavelength, #m
a representative reflectance curve for each of the ma-
jor types is presented along with a discussion of its p total reflectance; used in the appendix to
salient features. represent reflectance measurement of the
All the data were digitized from copies of doc- Earth's surface
 PA apparent reflectance of a surface feature made, each of the three techniques will be discussed
when viewed from aloft through the separately.
atmosphere
Laboratory Measurements
Pb reflectance of background
Total reflectance p is the ratio of the reflected ra-
Pt reflectance of target
diant flux to the incident flux (Judd 1967). For a
optical depth given target this quantity can be determined in sev-
TA
eral ways, but in the laboratory a small sample of
relative azimuth angle, deg the target is usually analyzed using a spectropho-
tometer with an integrating sphere attachment. Two
irradiance azimuth angle, deg
methods of measuring reflectance with an integrat-
reflected beam azimuth angle, deg ing sphere are possible. In the substitution method,
sample and reference (an ideal Lambertian surface)
Wo single-scattering albedo
are placed in turn at the sample aperture and the
ratio of respective photocell readings is determined.
Measurement of ReflectanCe This technique has introduced systematic error of
up to 12 percent in the determination of reflectance
Reflectance of a target can be measured in three
(Jacquez and Kuppenheim 1955). In the comparison
ways: in the laboratory, in the field, or from an el-
method, both sample and reference are placed in sep-
evated platform such as an aircraft. These three
arate apertures, the illuminating beam is switched
approaches provide different results for several rea-
from one to the other, and the ratio of the respective
sons. Illumination conditions are more easily con-
photocell readings is determined (Vlcek 1972). For a
trolled in the laboratory, but then the content of
perfect sphere, the error is zero; with a flat sample,
the field-of-view changes from laboratory to field to
the error is about 1 percent. Most of the laboratory
aircraft (or spacecraft). In studying vegetation, for
data included in the appendix were generated with
example, a single leaf may be analyzed in the lab-
spectrophotometers that use the comparison method.
oratory, whereas in the field the footprint usually
Because of the transmittance of leaves, any re:
becomes larger with altitude. Thus, depending on
flectance measurement of a single leaf is influenced
its altitude, a narrow-field-of-view instrument may
by the background on which the sample is supported
"see" anything from several leaves to a field sev-
(Lillesaeter 1982). When leaves are stacked, it has
eral hundred meters in diameter. As the footprint
been found that no further change in reflectance
becomes larger, the target becomes a composite of
at near-infrared wavelengths occurs beyond a depth
leaves, stalks, soil, grasses, weeds, etc., and its re-
of eight leaf layers or more (Allen and Richardson
flectance properties are influenced by such factors as
1968). When comparing laboratory with field mea-
wind condition, row geometry, solar zenith, target
surements, Knipling (1970) found that the visible and
slope, etc. Also, as altitude increases, atmospheric
near-infrared reflectances from a nearly continuous
effects become more important, and scattering and
broad leaf canopy were typically about 40 and 70 per-
absorption effects on radiance are enhanced. Target
cent, respectively, of the laboratory reflectance of a
radiance is also influenced by scattered radiance from
single leaf.
outside the instrument field-of-view. (These two ef-
fects are discussed in the appendix.)
Field Measurements
Although the three measurement techniques yield
different results, each has its place in remote sensing Spectral reflectance of natural surfaces can be
research. When modeling a vegetation canopy, the measured in the field by using a radiometer fitted
reflectance of the individual leaves is a required in- with an integrating sphere as the primary radiation
put. The laboratory data in this report do not ade- receiver. The aperture of the sphere is pointed at
quately support canopy modeling; however, they do zenith to measure irradiance and then rotated 180 °
show spectral variations important in remote sens- to nadir to measure the target radiance. Since the
ing. When combining various ratios of vegetation nadir field-of-view is nearly 180 °, a correction is usu-
and bare soil to obtain an integrated reflectance, field ally applied to compensate for shading by the instru-
measurements are required. And lastly, when at- ment itself (Coulson and Reynolds 1971). When the
tempting to correlate target reflectance with satel- integrating sphere technique was used for measuring
lite measurements, a field measurement with a large hemispheric reflectance, Coulson and Reynolds found
footprint is desirable. Since target reflectance is in- that the time-varying irradiance field, particularly on
fluenced by the manner in which the measurement is hazy days, was responsible for appreciable scatter in

2
the reflectance determinations because of the sequen- Zenith
tial nature of the measurements. Duggin and Cunia
(1983) compared simultaneous measurements of irra- Radiance Irradiance
diance and target radiance with sequential measure-
ments and showed that the simultaneous approach
dramatically reduced the variation of the reflectance
measurements. Large cumulus clouds near the solar
disk and thin cirrus clouds are two major causes of
varying irradiance (Robinson and Biehl 1979).
A cosine receptor, which usually employs a diffus-
270
ing optics element or an immersion lens for improved
performance, is often used to measure irradiance over
a 27r steradian field-of-view. The target radiance
measurement at nadir is frequently restricted to a
smaller field-of-view, referred to as an "apertured"
reflectance measurement (Graetz and Gentle 1982).
The more commonly measured parameter, however,
Figure 1. Viewing geometry for bidirectional reflectance
is the bidirectional reflectance factor, which requires factor measurements.
a reference standard for the irradiance determina-
tion. A bidirectional reflectance factor R is defined
hi. 1982). As long as the field-of-view is no greater
as the ratio of the radiant flux reflected by the target than 15 ° to 20 °, the term bidirectional reflectance
to that reflected into the same beam geometry by a factor is considered to describe the measurements ad-
perfectly reflecting diffuser (Lambertian) identically equately (Bauer et al. 1979).
irradiated (Judd 1967). When field illumination conditions are too vari-
The bidirectional nature of R(gi, ¢i; Or, Cr) is il- able or the sky is frequently overcast, measurements
lustrated in figure 1 for incident and reflected beams can be made using an artificial light source (De Boer
where (8i, ¢i) and (0r, Cr) are the zenith and azimuth et al. 1974). In this procedure the target is covered
angles of the incident and reflected beams. In the to block out natural light. The technique can also
field, R can be approximated by taking the ratio of be extended to the laboratory, though it is the usual
the instrument response when viewing the target Vt practice to view potted field plants and not individ-
to the instrument response when viewing a level ref- ual leaves (McClellan et al. 1963).
erence surface Vr such that
Aircraft Measurements
½
(1)
Rt(O i, qSi; Or, Cr) = _rrRr(Oi, ¢i; Or, Cr) The measurement of reflectance has thus far in-
volved only a ratio of two instrument readings and a
where Rr (0i, el;Or, Cr) is the bidirectional reflectance calibrated reference surface (when the reflectance fac-
factor of the reference surface; this term corrects for tor is measured). With aircraft measurements, there
the nonideal reflectance properties of the reference is the additional complication of atmospheric scatter-
surface. This relation assumes that (1) the instru- ing and absorption effects. Atmospheric scattering is
ment response is linear to entrant flux, (2) the dif- apparent to anyone who has viewed the ground from
fuse component of irradiance is negligible, (3) the ref- an aircraft on a hazy day; the scattering produces a
erence surface is irradiated and viewed in the same bluish turbidity superimposed over the background
manner as the target, and (4) the aperture is suffi- scene. If a suitable reference surface is available or if
ciently distant from the target. the spectral reflectance of selected targets has been
An attempt to correct for the diffuse skylight com- established as references using field or helicopter (i.e.,
ponent in the irradiance field by subtracting the spec- low altitude) equipment, aircraft data can also be
tral responses of the shadowed target and shadowed calibrated (Bauer et al. 1979). The wide scan angle
reference introduces an uncertainty in the reflectance of most aircraft instruments is an additional prob-
determination that is greater than the diffuse sky- lem, since the atmospheric path is variable across
light effect itself (Bauer et al. 1977). A simulation the scan. Either additional calibrations should be
study on the influence of sky radiance has found the made at selected off-nadir scan angles or the targets
error induced in the estimation of bidirectional re- of interest should be restricted to nadir viewing.
flectance factors to be less than 5 percent for zenith Surface reflectances can be estimated fairly well
view and Sun zenith angles less than 55 ° (Kirchner et without ground support, however, provided that
 absoluteradiancemeasurements
areobtained and a senescence, the visible reflectance increases while
suitable radiative transfer program is used to correct the near-infrared reflectance decreases, although rel-
for atmospheric effects (Bowker et al. 1983). Because atively less than the visible increases. Thus, veg-
of the interest in airborne and spaceborne remote etation reflectance usually progresses from a back-
sensing systems, the influence of the atmosphere on ground, such as soil, to full greenness and then re-
radiance measurements from elevated platforms is turns to the background again.
discussed in the appendix. Two of the reflectance By analyzing the reflectance spectrum of vege-
curves presented in this report have been corrected tation in discrete narrow bands, Verhoef and Bun-
for atmospheric effects using the technique given in nik (1974) identified about i2 spectral bands rele-
the appendix. vant for assessing special features of crops. The se-
lection of a few bands and/or wide bands does not
General Features of Reflectance Curves
give optimum results (Beers 1975). Generally, the se-
Many natural targets have common features in lected bands should have low correlation. Using the
their spectral reflectance curves, which make the tar- Landsat MSS bands, Kauth and Thomas (1976) de-
gets difficult to identify or separate. All vegetation, veloped a linear transformation (called the "tasseled
for instance, has a similar reflectance profile, whether cap") that defines two orthogonal components called
it be agricultural crops, trees, shrubs, or grasses. "brightness" and "greenness." The brightness estab-
In addition to the Subtle differences in reflectances, lishes the data space of soils, and the greenness is a
the reflectances vary with time, at least for Vegeta- measure of green vegetation. The: temporal behavior
tion; this often leads to an identification or separa- of the greenness can be used to separate some Crops
tion of targets. Several of the major categories of (Badhwar et al. 1982). Idso et al. (1980) used a re-
reflectances w_l-be discussed in some detail in this flectance ratio involving Landsat MSS bands 5 (0.6-
section to show the commonality of features and the 0.7/zm) and 6 (0.7-0.8 #m) to estimate ga:ain yielcls
manner in which remote sensing may take advantage by remote sensing of crop senescence rates. Crops
of minor differences to separate targets. Vane et al. that are stressed for water, which have lowest grain
(1982) have summarized the spectral bands useful for yields, had a longer period of senescence.
remote sensing applications. The broad absorption areas near 1.4 and 1.95
#m are also atmospheric water vapor bands and
Vegetation should be avoided in remote sensing. However, the
Figure 2 is a typical reflectance curve for photo- 1.6 and 2.2/_m regions are useful for distinguishing
synthetically active vegetation. The spectrum can succulent (average leaf water content of 92 percent)
be broken into three regions according to the ma- from nonsucculent (average leaf water content of
jor factor responsible for the curve behavior. Below 71 percent) plants (Gausman et al. 1978).
0.7/tm, absorption is dominated by carotenoid pig- According to Collins (1978) the sharp spectral
ments (centered at 0.48 #m) and chlorophylls (cen- reflectance rise between the chlorophyll absorption
tered at 0.68/_m). The green peak (centered at ap- maximum and the cellular reflectance maximum, the
proximately 0.56 _um) is the region of the visible spec- red edge, can be very useful in detecting pheno-
trum corresponding to weak absorption. The sharp logic changes and geochemical stress. In a study
rise around 0.7 #m, (called the red edge) marks the of maturation changes of crop plants such as corn,
change from chlorophyll absorption to cellular re- wheat, and sorghum, Collins detected a red-shift
flectance. The near-infrared reflectance from 0.7 to (of 0.007 to 0.010 /_m) of the red edge to longer
1.3/_m is dominated by the cell-wall/airspace inter- wavelengths (0.690 to 0.700/_m) associated with the
face and, to a lesser extent, by refractive index dis- conversion from vegetative growth to reproductive
continuities of cellular constituents (Gausman 1974). growth (heading and flowering). The red-shift was
Beyond 1.3 /zm, reflectance is primarily controlled useful in separating some crop types, particularly the
by leaf water content. The suggested spectral bands non-grain from the grain crops (the shift is not as
given in figure 2 have been successfully used by the pronounced in the non-grain crops).
researchers; they mostly represent bands that were When plants become stressed, a decrease in
available on various sensors and are not necessar- chlorophyll Productivity causes a shift of the red edge
ily optimum with respect to bandwidth or central toward shorter wavelengths. This kind of blue-shift
wavelength. has been detected in the reflectance spectrum from
During the growth cycle of vegetation the re- a forest canopy growing over copper-lead-zinc sulfide
flectance decreases in the visible wavelength and in- mineralization (Collins et al. 1977).
creases in the near-infrared wavelengths until max- Just as the detection of the shift in the red
imum canopy development is reached. Then, with edge requires spectral measurements of 0.010-#m

4
resolution, other regions within the reflectance curve while that at 1.0 #m is caused by ferrous iron com-
of vegetation may also demand such resolution (Mack pounds.
et al. 1984). There is an emphasis toward more The 0.4 to 1.0 #m region is not useful for moni-
bands with higher spectral resolution; however, Mack toring soil moisture content (Reginato et al. 1977),
advises using only those bands with an established although the entire reflectance curve is generally sup-
relevant biophysical and agronomic basis. Knowl- pressed with increased moisture. The region cen-
edge of these spectral characteristics is essential for tered at 2.2 #m has the highest correlation with soil
minimizing data proce§sing costs and time. moisture; this region was similarly important with
vegetation.
Soil The two regions of highest soil reflectance, cen-
tered at approximately 1.27 and 1.65 #m, correlate
Figure 3 displays five representative spectral re- with many soil properties (Stoner and Baumgardner
flectance curves for soils. Condit (1970) has clas- 1980). With sandy textured soils, a decrease in parti-
sified 160 soil samples from 36 states into three cle size increased reflectance. However, with medium
general types according to the shape of their re- to fine textured soils, a decrease in particle size de-
flectance curves within the 0.4 to 1.0 #m region of creased reflectance.
the spectrum. Type 1 curves have rather low re-
flectances with slightly increasing slope, which gives Rocks and Minerals
them their characteristic concave form from 0.32 to
about 1.0 #m. Type 2 curves are characterized by Figure 4 shows spectral reflectance curves for
generally decreasing slope to about 0.6/_m followed shale and andesite. Rocks are similar to soils in
by a slight dip from 0.6 to 0.7 _tm, with continued reflectance, which is not surprising since soils are
decreasing slope beyond 0.75 /_m. This results in derived from weathered rocks. One major difference
a typical convex shape from the visible to beyond between the two is the organic matter present in soils,
1.0 _m. Type 2 soils are better drained and lower which tends to decrease reflectance.
in organic matter than type 1 soils. Type 3 curves With transparent rock particles, reflectance in-
have a slightly decreasing steep slope to about 0.6 #m creases with a decrease in particle size, but just the
followed by a slight dip from 0.62 to 0.74/_m, with opposite is the case with opaque particles (Salisbury
slope decreasing to near zero or becoming negative and Hunt 1968). This may explain the behavior of
from 0.76 to 0.88 #m. Beyond 0.88 #m (to 1.0/_m) the fine grain soils discussed in the previous section.
the slope increases with wavelength. Type 3 soils The iron absorption bands are very prominent in
have moderately high iron content. Condit was able basic rocks (i.e., igneous rocks with minerals rich in
to reproduce these curves (160 in all) with a high de- metallic bases). These absorption bands are even
gree of accuracy from measurements at five narrow prominent in red-stained beach sands.
bandwidths (0.02 /_m) centered at 0.40, 0.54, 0.64, The strong fundamental OH vibration at 2.74/_m
0.74, and 0.92 #m; these wavelengths may not relate characterizes the behavior of hydroxyl-bearing min-
to specific physical phenomena. Stoner and Baum- erals. Clays (hydrous aluminum silicates), in par-
gardner (1980) established two more types of soil re- ticular, show decreasing spectral reflectance beyond
flectance curves, similar to type 3, by extending the 1.6 #m, and this broadband behavior can be used to
data out to 1.3 ttm. The type 4 reflectance behavior identify clay-rich areas associated with hydrothermal
from.0.88 to 1.3 ttm was caused by high iron content alteration zones (Podwysocki et al. 1983). The ab-
and organic material. In type 5, the negative slope sorption peaks at 2.17 and 2.20 #m can be used to
from 0.75 to 1.3 /_m resulted from very high iron identify clay minerals (Goetz and Rowan 1981). The
and low organic concentrations. This was the only reflectance spectrum of unaltered material is not as
type that did not show a strong absorption (water) complex, particularly in the 2.0 to 2.4 #m region, as
at 1.45 #m. in altered rocks.
Although reflectances in all spectral regions are The spectral absorption features at 1.4 and
negatively correlated with organics, the region 1.9 t_m, as well as at 2.2 /_m, indicate hydration,
around 0.57 #m (the green peak) is particularly use- but these two regions are subject to atmospheric
ful for monitoring organic matter in bare soils since interference.
it is free of other major disturbances. Stoner and The detection of vegetation cover and the anal-
Baumgardner considered measurements at 0.7, 0.9, ysis of the spectral properties of plants to identify
and 1.0 #m to be essential for thorough classification conditions present in the soil are also an important
of background soil reflectance. Absorptions at 0.7 area in geologic remote sensing. This subject was
and 0.9 #m are produced by ferric iron compounds, mentioned in the vegetation section. A discussion of
 • 8- . Suggestedspectral bands

,i,m==
• ;'--

•6 _-_ :_Cell structure-l---_ Leafwater content_

L_al I

pigmentsI
I Ceil-wail/airspace
I interface
P .4

- _i H20
.2 Chlorophyll absorption H 0 absorption

0 I I
.3 .5 1.0 },, pm 1.5 2.0 2.

Figure 2. Typical vegetation reflectance curve showing dominant factors controlling leaf reflectance. Vane et at. (1982)
attributed the three rows of suggested spectral bands to Wiersma and Landgrebe (top row), Tucker (middle row), and
ORI, Inc. (bottom row).

Suggested spectral bands

"'F
6
Iton absorption
brightest
J.
Two

regions
J,
Moisture
content

organic [---_ _ ___ "X_ /_ Curve

.2
2
1
4
5
0 I
.3 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Lpm

Figure3. Typicalsoilreflectance
curvesforthe fivemajor typesof curves.Types 1-3 proposedby Condit (1970)and types
4 and 5 by Stoner and Baumgardner (1980).Vane et al.(1982)attributedthe suggestedspectralbands to Stonerand
Baumgardner.

6
 Suggested spectral bands
.8 m
llmmB
J
m m m m
_ ii nil mm

Bound and unbound

water absorption

.6
1
l | OH-bear!ng
Iron absorption I _ I abs°rpti°n
I

P .4

SHALE/
.2 -

0 I I I l l
.3 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
,X,pm

Figure 4. Typical reflectance curves for two rock formations. Vane et al. (1982) attributed the suggested spectral bands
to Goetz and Rowan except for the 0.40-0.42 /_m and 0.84-0.90 t_m bands (ORI, Inc.) and the 0.45-0.52 _m band
(Billingsley).

Suggested spectral band

(for cloud-snow)
.8-
mR

.6 Clouds

P
.4

Suggested spectral bands

( for water )
_-.___,,..
II m

.2
Fresh snow

Figure 5. Typical reflectance curves for water, snow, and clouds. Vane et al. (1982) attributed the suggested spectral bands
for water to ORI, Inc., except for the 0.47-0.57 _m band (NASA-GSFC). The cloud-snow band is by Crane and Anderson
(1984).

7
the topichasbeenpresented by Goetzet al. (1983). preferred data were well documented with a discus-
A 10-percentgrasscovermasksbeyondrecognition sion of error sources.
spectralcharacteristics
of suchrocksasandesiteand The targets were grouped into six major cate-
limestonethat havelowreflectances;dry vegetation, gories: agriculture; trees; shrubs and grasses; rocks
on the otherhand,hasa minimaleffect(Siegaland and soils; water, snow, and clouds; and miscellaneous
Goetz1977).Beyond1.4#m,the reflectance of rock targets. Each reflectance curve was presented by its
tendsto becomemoredominant. author as being representative of a given target; this
report has simply standardized all of the data to a
common format.
Water, Snow, and Clouds
This standardization involved digitizing the
In the absence of glitter effects, water is easily dis- curves from the published documents and interpo-
tinguished from other targets by its low reflectance, lating to obtain the desired format. The digitiza-
particularly in the near-infrared portion of the spec- tion was performed in the following manner. First,
trum. However, high concentrations of suspended a photocopy was made of each spectral reflectance
sediment, which often occur in shallow reservoirs, curve chosen for inclusion in the data set. Then,
can increase reflectance. Surface algal blooms can an X-Y digitizer was used to digitize the data from
also change the reflectance properties of water; these each profile. Each record was archived on magnetic
are distinguished from high sediment loads by the tape. In final processing the data were retrieved, the
characteristic chlorophyll absorption in the red area reflectance curve was machine plotted, and a second-
of the spectrum. Monitoring chlorophyll in ocean order interpolation was performed to give the uni-
waters, where reflectance is less than 0102, has been form spectral intervals and format shown; having a
discussed by Gower et al. (1984). common wavelength interval for each profile helps in-
In figure 5, both snow and clouds are seen to have tercomparison of the data.
high reflectance in the visible portion of the spec- Digitizing the data has, of course, introduced
trum. Clouds are still highly reflective in the near- some error. All of the data were taken from copies of
infrared wavelengths, while snow becomes relatively the original documents. Fortunately, one of the re-
nonreflective beyond 1.4 #m, particularly in the 1.5 ports (Gausman et al. 1973) contained both graphi-
to 1.6 #m region (Crane and Anderson 1984). cal and tabular data. This set of data represents the
worst case in digitizing since the original figures were
only approximately 20 by 45 mm in size. Compari-
Selection and Formatting of the Spectral
Reflectance Data son of reflectance values at 38 coincident wavelengths
(taken from two figures in the Gausman report) gave
A literature search for spectral reflectance data an average error of only 0.0073 units of reflectance.
retrieved about 300 spectral curves. From these, This is an excellent agreement, and the data pre-
156 were selected based on the following criteria: sented in this report may, therefore, be taken as re-
(1) the importance of the target, (2) the data collec- liably reporting the original sources.
tion mode, and (3) the quality of the data. Priorities Spectral reflectances for the 156 selected targets
for the remote sensing of agricultural crops have been are presented in the common format in the back of
established by Bowker (1985). For the other areas, this report. The reflectance data for each target are
however, selection was guided by availability and the presented in two formats: (1) graphical, with a wave-
desire to present a variety of targets. Field measure- length interval from 0.3 to 1.2 #m or from 0.3 to
ments made with a high-resolution scanning spec- 2.5 #m, and (2) tabular, with a spectral resolution of
trophotometer were preferred. This type of data was 0.01 #m (0.3 to 1.2 #m) or 0.02 #m (0.3 to 2.5 #m ).
limited, so that laboratory spectral measurements of- The ordinate of the reflectance curves is labeled "re-
ten had to be selected. It is important to note that flectance" with a range from 0 to 1. Bidirectional re-
laboratory measurements are sometimes required be- flectance factor would have been a more appropriate
cause of vegetation cover of natural targets in the term for most of the field data, but it was not always
field, for example, soils. Of the 156 data sets, 59 rep- clear that the assumptions required by equation (1)
resent laboratory measurements. Most of these oc- were valid (see Robinson and Biehl 1979). In several
cur in either the tree or the rocks and soils category. instances data have been included where the ordinate
(As previously mentioned, the laboratory and field was labeled "relative reflectance" or "albedo." The
data are not compatible since they represent entirely magnitudes of most target reflectances are known to
different environments.) Finally, the quality of the vary over wide limits, even when the target descrip-
reflectance data, which was judged somewhat arbi- tions are identical. What is most important is the
trarily, was used to eliminate some of the data. The variation of reflectance with wavelength.

8
Concluding Remarks The data are presented here with a uniform 0.01-
or 0.02-#m spacing, even though the spectral reso-
A collection of spectral reflectances for 156 natu- lution of the source data varied widely. Therefore
ral targets has been presented in a uniform format. these data are intended for the broad class of appli-
Each target is described by both graphical and tab- cations requiring moderate spectral resolution, and
ular data. The collection was chosen with some con-
not for those requiring high spectral resolution, such
sideration of the relative importance of the targets,
as the detection of the vegetative red-shift; for these
and the data presented are representative of what is high-resolution tasks, other data must be used.
available in the literature. While the data set was de-
veloped to support simulation studies in the develop-
ment of remote sensing instruments, it may find ap- NASA Langley Research Center
plication in other areas of remote sensing, such as al- Hampton, VA 23665
gorithm development and radiative transfer studies. February 20, 1985

9
Appendix the instrument L T is composed of a beam radiance
L B and a path radiance Lp. Thus,
Atmospheric Effects on Reflectance Profiles LT = LB + Lp (A3)
In the spectral region of interest for this report,
The beam radiance LB is that component of radiance
0.3 to 2.5 pm, the sensed energy is almost entirely
arising from radiation reflected from the Surface and
derived from solar radiation which transits the atmo-
transmitted directly to the sensor without scattering_
sphere, is reflected by the surface, and is then trans-
i.e_, LB = LsT. The path radiance Lp is scattered
mitted to the sensor aloft. In this spectral region,
radiation which enters the path between target and
the thermal radiation from the atmosphere itself is
sensor. In terms of the surface radiance Ls,
negligible in comparison with the solar component,
so it will be ignored here. The solar irradiance Eo on LT = LsT + Lp (A4)
top of the atmosphere is shown in figure A1. After
passing through the atmosphere, the irradiance im- where T is the transmittance of the atmosphere
pinging on the surface has been attenuated as shown along the target-to-sensor path. Since the surface
by the lower curve. Both curves here pertain to the reflectance is defined as
Sun at zenith. The atmospheric absorption features
lr Ls
shaded on the curve are due to ozone, oxygen, water
p = _ (A5)
vapor, and carbon dioxide, as indicated.
The solar irradiance at the surface is composed then the apparent reflectance aloft is
of both a direct and a diffuse component, as shown
in figure A2. For the example shown, the diffuse rL T _ 7r (LsT + Lp) (A6)
PA= Es Es
component amounts to more than 30 percent of the
total at the shortest wavelengths. (Slater (1980) which differs from the true reflectance p according to
states that a diffuse component of 10 to 20 percent the magnitudes of T and Lp for the altitude of the
is typical for the visual to near-infrared spectral sensor. Depending on their magnitudes, PA can be
range.) The conditions assumed for figure A2 are an either larger or smaller than the true value p.
atmospheric visual range of 31.4 km and a surface Figure A3 shows the apparent reflectances of tar-
reflectance of 0.4 at all wavelengths. (For this, and gets with true reflectances of 0.1, 0.4, and 0.7 when
subsequent curves in this appendix, the solar zenith the targets are viewed from altitudes of 0.6 kin,
angle 0i is 20°; all figures here cover the wavelength 3.0 kin, and the top of the atmosphere (TOA). In
range from 0.4 to 1.2 #m.) As will be seen later, general, viewing through the atmosphere increases
varying the visibility and surface reflectance affects the apparent reflectance for low-reflectance objects
the magnitude of the diffuse irradiance. (e.g., p = 0.1) and decreases the apparent reflectance
From the foregoing, it can be seen that the spec- for high-reflectance objects (e.g., p = 0.7). For ob-
tral content of the solar irradiance has been modified jects of intermediate reflectance (e.g., p = 0.4), the
greatly by the atmosphere even before any reflection effect is minimal and depends on wavelength; PA can
takes place. The irradiance at the surface Es is made be either larger or smaller than the true reflectance
up of a direct solar component Eos and a diffuse com- p.
ponent E d, so This distortion in PA is not surprising because
Es = Eos + Ed (A1) only photons in Ls carry information purely concern-
ing the target. Most photons making up Lp have had
Upon reflection by the ground, a surface radiance Ls no interaction with the target. Some of them are
results which is a function of Es and p, the surface derived from multiple-scattered radiation which has
reflectance. If Lambertian (isotropic) reflectance can never reached the surface. Others are derived from
be assumed (this assumption may not always be radiation which has been reflected from the surface
justified; see Smith et al. 1980), then outside the target area and then, after one or more
atmospheric scatterings, has found its way into the
Ls = Ss__fp (A2) field-of-view of the sensor. A small number of pho-
tons in Lp have been reflected by the target, but
All quantities have a spectral dependence, which has scattered at least once on their way to the sensor
been omitted here for clarity of notation. The surface (and, thus, are not strictly part of the beam radi-
radiance Ls is that radiance which would be mea- ance). As the path radiance increases relative to the
sured by an observer at the surface. When the target beam radiance, less information about the target is
is viewed from aloft, the total radiance measured at included in the radiance signal.

10
 250_-

200-

Solar irradiance outside atmosphere

150- Solar irradiance at sealevel

Ir radiance, H20
mW cm -2
pm-1 100- _z-O 2, H20

_-H20

l, rl __iii_=. H20' C02 H20' C02L_, , ,

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2
},, IJm

Figure A1. Solar spectral irradiance outside the atmosphere and at the surface, for solar zenith angle of 0 °. Features due to
principal absorbers are identified.

Irradiance,
mWcm-2
sr-1 iJm-1

5O

Bi: 20°, er = 0:, ""

V = 31.4km,p= 0.4,eo = 0.95

0 I I l I [ I I I
.4 .5 .6 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2

Figure A2. An example of the direct and indirect (diffuse) components of irradiance on a surface with reflectance of 0.4.

11
 .7
.... p= 0.7

Conditions
:
0i= 20o,Or=0°,V = 31.4km, t_
° = 0.95

.9

PA
Sensoraltitude,
H

.... 3.0kin
_._ 0.6km ::

: 0.Y

0.4 .....
_,_m
, •
I.I 1.2

Figure A3. Effect of sensor altitude on apparent surface reflectance.

45

Conditions
:

0i= 20o,Or= 0o,

V = 31.4,
kin,Uo = 0.95

3[

25

Radianc_,
mW cm-_
st-1 _m-I Sensor altitude, H
TOA
--.-- 0.6 km

p= 0.7

.;,'-" "--'_'-_/-_T p = 0.1

'0_ LB . . o o
II0 lli 1.2
4 5 0 J .o .- . "
• " " X,pm

Figure h4. Beam ra_liance and total radiance at 0.6 km and TOA.

12
 Figure A4 shows the relative strengths of L T Viewing geometry:
and LB for reflectances of 0.1 and 0.7, at altitudes Solar zenith angle, 0i
of 0.6 km and TOA. Thus, this figure shows the Viewing angle, 0r
radiance components for the PA plots in figure A3. Azimuthal angle, ¢i or Cr
Note that the absorption features in the radiance Relative azimuthal angle, ¢,
curves have been omitted, for clarity. The path where ¢ = Cr - ¢i + 180
radiance is the difference between L T and L B. For Altitude of sensor, H
reflectance of 0.1, the 0.6-km curves lie between Meteorological parameters:
the TOA curves. Then, for reflectance of 0.7, the Relative humidity
0.6-km curves lie at or above both TOA curves. This Cloud cover
behavior shows that for p = 0.1, total radiance Surface pressure
increases with altitude, but for p = 0.7, it decreases
Atmospheric optical parameters:
with altitude. For p = 0.4 (not shown), the total
radiance is nearly constant. Turner (1975) describes Optical thickness, rA
or
in more detail the relative magnitudes of LT, LB,
and Lp under a variety of conditions. Atmospheric visual range, V
Aerosol type (phase function)
Single-scattering albedo, wo

Factors Affecting Apparent Reflectance Target and background parameters:

Determination Target size
Target reflectance, Pt
Some introductory examples have just been given Background reflectance, Pb
of the influence of altitude and surface reflectance
Instantaneous field-of-view, IFOV
on the derived reflectance. In the present section,
all the parameters affecting the determination of ap- The effect of variation in each of these parameters is
now discussed.
parent reflectance will be identified, and their effects
described. The parameters are shown on figure A5; Viewing Geometry. As 0 i increases, less solar irra-
they may be grouped as follows: diance is incident on the surface, and less is reflected

Zenith
Satellite, at altitude H

Meteorologicalparameters
Atmospheric opticalparameters Cloud cover
Visual range, V Surface pressure
Aerosol type (phase function) Relative humidity
Single-scattering albedo

Background
reflectance, Pb
Sensor IFOV

Target reflectance, p t

Figure A5. Parameters affecting apparent reflectance.

13
to the observer.Therefore,failureto accountfor an of the Sun (relative azimuth angle ¢ = 0 °) and de-
increasein 0i would result in an underestimate of re- creases by 0.014 for observations in the direction op-
flectance. (As noted earlier, 0 i should be kept below posite the Sun (¢ = 180°), compared with the nadir-
55°.) Also, as Oi increases, there is a higher propor- looking case, which is denoted by X's on the graph.
tion of multiple scattering in the incident radiation. At ), -- 0.7 #m, the increase and decrease are both
Similar effects are noted for Or; as Or increases, the approximately equal to 0.002.
path component of radiance increases, and the beam
component of radiance passes through a longer at-
Conditions :
mospheric path and suffers more attenuation through
absorption and scattering. Therefore, as Or increases, Bi=20':', Or=5'° p =0.1,

the total radiance depends more heavily on atmo- H = TOA, o° = 0.95

@= 0° V = 31.4 km
spheric influences and less on target characteristics.
x- Pointsdenote
Thus, target contrast and modulation become re-
.2 ,\_/_$= 90° nadir vlew(e r = 0 °)
duced with increasing Or. In addition to the atmo-
spheric effects, most targets have bidirectional re-
flectance characteristics that are not isotropic (see,
e.g., Smith and Ranson 1979 and Kimes 1983). This
behavior needs to be considered in addition to the ef-
.1
fects of changing Oi and Or (Ho!ben and Fraser 1984
and Barnsley 1984). A feature's reflectance may be
OT I I I I l I l ]
considered to be isotropic only for small instanta-
.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2
neous fields-of-view (IFOV) and over ranges of Oi h, JJm
and Or each smaller than a few degrees (Slater 1980). Figure A6. Effect on apparent reflectance of changing
However, isotropic surface reflectance is assumed in relative azimuthal angle when viewing a surface with
all cases here. .... : ...........
reflectance of 0.1 at 5
O
from nadirl fromsatellite altitude.
Solar radiation is scattered by both the molecular
and the aerosol component of the atmosphere. The
Meteorologlcalparameters. Implicit in the forego-
molecular component (mostly nitrogen) scatters in a
Rayleigh-like fashion with equal amounts of forward- ing discussion was the assumption of a cloud-free at-
and back-scattering, and smaller amounts at right mosphere and a nominal water vapor profile. Clouds
angles to the incident beam. In a very clear atmo- can drastically modulate the amount of energy reach-
sphere, the scattering of radiation approaches this ing the surface; they are not modeled here. (For a
condition. In an aerosol atmosphere, however, scat- good discussion of cloud effects, see Duggin et al.
tering is much more anisotropic, with the prepon- 1984.) Changes in the humidity profile change the
derance of radiation scattered in the forward direc- depth of the water vapor absorption features. A
tion. In most conditions, the scattering phase func- higher level of relative humidity also affects the type
tion shape is a blend of the Rayleigh and aerosol of aerosol present, by favoring larger aerosol particles

phase function shapes, with considerable departure (Shettle and Fenn 1979).
from anisotropy. For this reason, the magnitude of Surface pressure and terrain altitude variability
have similar effects on the radiance level. The three-
the radiance reaching the detector depends highly
on ¢ except when Or is zero (i.e., the nadir is being sigma surface pressure variability worldwide is esti-
viewed). For molecular scattering, the radiation is mated to be equivalent to a surface elevation range
scattered approximately as the inverse fourth power from -0.73 to +0.78 km (Bowker et al. 1983). Either
a pressure or a surface elevation change modifies the
of the wavelength. (This accounts for the predomi-
nantly blue color of the sky.) For aerosol scattering, amount of molecular scattering. For most cases, this
effect is small.
the result is less marked, the exponent being on the
order of -1.3 (Kiang 1982). Thus, aerosol scatter-
Atmospheric optical parameters. The amount of
ing results in a blue-white "milkiness," rather than
aerosol in the atmosphere is usually parameterized
a blue coloration. For both of these reasons, the ef-
by the aerosol optical thickness TA where
fect of a change in ¢ is, again, always most marked
at the shortest wavelengths. Figure A6 shows the T A = exp(--VA) (A7)
effect of changing ¢ with 0i --- 20 ° when a surface
with reflectance of 0.1 is viewed from satellite alti- is the aerosol transmissivity in a vertical path. The
tude for Or = 5 °. For example, at _ = 0.4 #m, PA value of vA can be determined for a locality by view-
increases by 0.030 for observations in the direction ing the Sun with a photometer over a range of solar

14
elevationangles(Flowerset al. 1969and Peterson .8
et al. 1981).The total attenuationis measured and,
then,because themolecularscatteringandozoneop- .7
tical thicknessesareknownand canbe subtracted,
:_'..-=_-__--_-=-'C"- ---'--' ................
the aerosolopticalthickness canbedetermined.The
aerosoloptical thicknessis sometimes expressed as .6 _
Conditions:
P= 0.7
a turbidity, often takenat or near0.55#m wave-
length. The opticalthickness(or turbidity) at one Oi=20°, Or=0%
wavelengthcanbe relatedto the optical thickness .5 (oo = 0.95, H= TOA
at other wavelengths statistically(Fraser1975and
KaufmanandFraser1983)or analytically(Nicholls
1984). PA _-_.__-_'- -.-_-.:_ ........

p= 0.4
Anotherway of quantifying aerosol amount is
through visual range in the horizontal at the sur-
Visual range:
face (Elterman 1970). The lower the visual range,
the more turbid the atmosphere. This approach has 31.4 km
appeal because visibility (which is proportional to vi- -- 62.8 km
m 10.5 km
sual range (Kneizys et al. 1980)) is a parameter mea-
sured at all weather stations, whereas optical thick- T

ness is measured at comparatively few sites. The p= 0.I

correspondence between optical thickness and visual
0 I I I I I I I I
range is only a rough proportionality, however, be- .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2
cause it is possible to have thick layers of aerosol ex- ;_,pm
isting aloft with a very clear atmosphere at the sur-
Figure A7. Effect of atmospheric visual range on apparent
face, as indicated by a surface visibility measurement. reflectance, for three surface reflectances.
For this reason, particularly in remote sensing mea-
surements, for which a target is viewed downward visual range at solar zenith angles other than 20 °
through the atmosphere rather than along a near-
may be found in Bowker et al. (1983).
surface path, turbidity is a more reliable measure.
In summary, a decrease in visual range, or an The type of aerosol affects the shape of the single-
increase in optical thickness, increases the amount scattering phase function. Also, the more absorptive
of aerosol scattering. Figure A7 shows the effect the aerosol, the more isotropic the scattering. The
on apparent reflectance of changing the atmospheric single-scattering albedo wo determines the amount
visual range from a very hazy condition (V -- 10.5 of radiation scattered, rather than absorbed, at each
km) through an average condition (V = 31.4 km) scattering. A higher wo means a higher total radi-
to a rather clear condition (V = 62.8 km). The ance level. Remember that the shape of the actual
solar zenith angle is 20 ° , and the nadir is viewed. phase function varies with wavelength and is a blend
Three different surface reflectances are simulated. of the Rayleigh and aerosol phase function shapes.
For the low reflectance (p = 0.1), the effect is an Figure A8 shows the effect on PA of changes in the
increase in apparent reflectance at all wavelengths, aerosol single-scattering albedo wo assumed in the
particularly at short wavelengths. Even for the calculations; the effect is shown for three surface re-
very clear atmosphere (V = 62.8 km), the apparent flectances. The apparent reflectance is always highest
reflectance at A = 0.4 #m for p = 0.1 is around for the highest value of wo and lowest for the lowest
0.24. At A --- 0.7 /_m, the increase in reflectance value. The effect of a change in Wo is roughly propor-
is only approximately 0.02, even for a very hazy tional to the surface reflectance. For darkest scenes,
atmosphere. For p = 0.4, the effect of the atmosphere the effect is minimal; for the brightest scene simu-
can be either to decrease or to increase the apparent lated (p = 0.7), the effect on PA is as much as 0.04
reflectance, depending on the wavelength and visual at A=0.4#m.
range. There is an increase only at wavelengths
smaller than 0.6 #m; at longer wavelengths, the Target and background parameters. If the re-
apparent reflectance decreases, by up to 0.04 for a flectance of the adjacent surface area differs from
hazy atmosphere. For p = 0.7, the effect is a decrease that of the target, then light scattered from this sur-
in apparent reflectance for all wavelengths and visual rounding background has a different spectral content
ranges. A more detailed discussion of the effects of from that of the target, and the perceived target re-

15
 p= 0.7

6t
.5F
CondilJons
-
Bi = 20:, Sr = 0:, .5
Conditions
:
_. V = 31.4kin, H = TOA
Oi=20 °, Or=zO °'
,J ................
/ p= 0.4 0.4
PA _. H = TOA, u° = 0.95 Pt
I Single-scattering albedo:
.4 "_'_'_-" - Pb = 0.5
m. __ 1.00
-- 0.95 PA
.... 0.90

.3" Visual range:

m.__ 10.5 km
-- 31.4km
p=O.l
.I .... 62.8krn

I I I I I I I I
.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 l.O 1.1 i.2 .2 !_\.
A, IJm

Figure A8. Effect of aerosol single-scattering albedo on

apparent reflectance, for three surface reflectances.
.1 ....... 2 I "_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-.._.
i___ _ p£ = 0.2
.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2
flectance will be in error. Figure A9 shows the effect _,,pm
of viewing a target surrounded by a uniform, slightly
Figure A9. Effect of background radiance on apparent
more reflective background. The figure shows cases
reflectance, when background reflectance is 0.1 higher
with target/background reflectance combinations of
than target reflectance, for three target reflectances and
0.1/0.2, 0.4/0.5, and 0.7/0.8. A comparison of these atmospheric visual ranges.
results with those for the uniform-scene reflectances
of 0.1, 0.4, and 0.7 in figure A7 shows that in each to ask whether such influences can be estimated well

case the apparent reflectance is higher than that of enough to remove their effects and allow the true
the target alone, because of additional photons scat- reflectance profiles to be estimated. Bowker et al.
tered into the path from the background. Even for (1983) directly attacked this problem. In that re-
the slight reflectance differences (0.1) simulated here, port, the effects of imprecision in the knowledge of
the effect is appreciable. Thus, background effects each of the quantities noted earlier on derived re-
need to be taken carefully into account. flectance are discussed, and the results plotted. Also,

The research area of modeling such "adjacency a method was developed for estimating spectral re-

effects" continues to be an active one. Some recent flectance from total radiance values. Figure A10
(from Bowker et al. 1983) shows an example of an al-
references are those of Dave (1980), Kaufman and
Joseph (1982), Dana (1982), and Kaufman (1984). A falfa radiance profile converted to obtain a reflectance

good introductory discussion may be found in Slater profile. When the sky is free of clouds and relatively

(1980). stable atmospheric conditions prevail, it should be

possible to determine reflectance to an accuracy of
10 percent or better, by using local meteorological
Correction for Atmospheric Effects
data. It should be noted, however, that only 2 of the
Because the factors named above all affect the 156 reflectance curves presented in this report have
perceived reflectances of substances, it is of interest been corrected for atmospheric effects in this manner.

16
 25 1.0

2O .8
9 i = 27°

LT, 15
mW cm-2
.4
sr-llJm-1 10

0 I I I I I I 0
.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .q i.0
;k, pm L,IJm

Figure AIO. Example of alfalfa field radiance profile that has been converted to spectral reflectance.
References ican Soils. Photogramm. Eng., vol. 36, no. 8, Aug.,
pp. 955-966.
Allen, William A.; and Richardson, Arthur J. 1968: Interac- Coulson, K. L.; and Reynolds, David W. 1971: The Spectral
tion of Light With a Plant Canopy. J. Opt. Soc. America, Reflectance of Natural Surfaces. J. Appl. Meteorol.,
vol. 58, no. 8, Aug., pp. 1023-1028. vol. 10, no. 6., Dec., pp. 1285-1295.
Badhwar, G. D.; Carnes, J. G.; and Austin, W. W. 1982: Crane, R. G.; and Anderson, M. R. 1984: Satellite Discrimi-
Use of Landsat-Derived Temporal Profiles for Corn- nation of Snow/Cloud Surfaces. Int. J. Remote Sensing,
Soybean Feature Extraction and Classification. Remote vol. 5, no. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 213-223.
Sensing Environ., vol. 12, no. 1, Mar., pp. 57 79.
Dana, Robert W. 1982: Background Reflectance Effects in
Barnsley, M. J. 1984: Effects of Off-Nadir View Angles on Landsat Data. Appl. Opt., vol. 21, no. 22, Nov. 15,
the Detected Spectral Response of Vegetation Canopies. pp. 4106-4111.
Int. J. Remote Sensing, vol. 5, no. 4, July-Aug., pp. 715- Dave, J. V. 1980: Effect of Atmospheric Conditions on
728.
Remote Sensing of a Surface Nonhomogeneity. Pho-
Bauer, M. E.; McEwen, M. C.; Malila, W. A.; and togramm. Eng. _ Remote Sensing, vol. 46, no. 9, Sept.,
Harlan, J. C. 1979: Design, Implementation, and Results pp. 1173-1180.
of LACIE Field Research. LARS Tech. Rep. 102579 De Boer, Th. A.; Bunnik, N. J. J.; Van Kasteren, H. W. J.;
(Contract NAS9-15466), Purdue Univ., Oct., pp. 1037- Uenk, D.; Verhoef, W.; and De Loor, G. P. 1974:
1066. (Available as NASA TM-80811.) Investigation Into the Spectral Signature of Agricultural
Bauer, Marvin E.; Silva, LeRoy; Hoffer, Roger M.; and Crops During Their State of Growth. Proceedings of
Baumgardner, Marion F. 1977: Agricultural Scene Un- the Ninth International Symposium on Remote Sensing of
derstanding. LARS Contract Rep. 112677, (Contract Environment, Volume II, Environmental Research Inst.
NAS9-14970), Purdue Univ., Nov. (Available as NASA of Michigan, pp. 1441-1455.
CR-155343.) Duggin, M. J.; and Cunia, T. 1983: Ground Reflectance
Beers, J. N. P. 1975: Analysis of Significance Within Crop- Measurement Techniques: A Comparison. Appl. Opt.,
Spectra--A Comparison Study of Different Multispeetral vol. 22, no. 23, Dec. 1, pp. 3771-3777.
Scanners. NIWARS Publ. No. 30, Netherlands Interde- Duggin, M. J.; Schoch, L.; Cunia, T.; and Piwinski, D.
partmental Working Community for the Application of 1984: Effects of Random and Systematic Variations in
Remote Sensing Techniques (Kanaalweg 3, Delft, The Unresolved Cloud on Recorded Radiance and on Target
Netherlands), May. Discriminability. Appl. Opt., vol. 23, no. 3, Feb. 1,
Begni, Gerard 1982: Selection of the Optimum Spectral pp. 387-395.
Bands for the SPOT Satellite. Photogramm. Eng. Elterman, L. 1970: Vertical-Attenuation Model With Eight
Remote Sensing, vol. 48, no. 10, Oct., pp. 1613-1620. Surface Meteorological Ranges 2 to 13 Kilometers.
Biehl, L. L.; Bauer, M. E.; Robinson, B. F.; Daughtry, AFCRL-70-0200, U.S. Air Force, Mar. (Available from
C. S. T.; Silva, L. F.; and Pitts, D. E. 1982: A Crops and DTIC as AD 707 488.)
Soils Data Base for Scene Radiation Research. Machine
Flowers, E. C.; McCormick, R. A.; and Kurfis, K. R. 1969:
Processing of Remotely Sensed Data--Crop Inventory and Atmospheric Turbidity Over the United States, 1961-66.
Monitoring, D. C. McDonald and D. B. Morrison, eds., J. Appl. Meteorol., vol. 8, no. 6, Dec., pp. 955-962.
Laboratory for Applications of Remote Sensing, Purdue Fraser, Robert S. 1975: Degree of Interdependence Among
Univ., pp. 169-177. Atmospheric Optical Thicknesses in Spectral Bands Be-
Bowker, D. E.; Davis, R. E.; Von Ofenheim, W. H. C.; and tween 0.36-2.4 #m. J. Appl. Meteorol., vol. 14, no. 6,
Myrick, D. L. 1983: Estimation of Spectral Reflectance Sept., pp. 1187-1196.
Signatures From Spectral Radiance Profiles. Proceedings Gausman, H. W.; Allen, W. A.; Wiegand, C. L.; Escobar,
of the Seventeenth International Symposium on Remote D. E.; Rodriquez, R. R.; and Richardson, A. J. 1973:
Sensing of Environment, Volume II, Environmental Re- The Leaf Mesophylls of Twenty Crops, Their Light Spec-
search Inst. of Michigan, pp. 795-814. tra, and Optical and Geometrical Parameters. Tech. Bull.
Bowker, D. E. 1985: Priorities for Remote Sensing Based No. 1465 (NASA Contract No. R-09-038-002), U.S. Dep.
on Worldwide Distribution of Crops. Photogramm. Eng. Agriculture, Mar.
Remote Sensing, vol. 51, no. 8, Aug. (Scheduled for Gausman, Harold W. 1974: Leaf Reflectance of Near-
publication.) Infrared. Photogramm. Eng., vol. XL, no. 2, Feb.,
Collins, William 1978: Remote Sensing of Crop Type and pp. 183 191.
Maturity. Photoyramm. Eng. _ Remote Sensing, vol. 44, Gansman, H. W.; Escobar, D. E.; Everitt, J. H.; Richard-
no. 1, Jan., pp. 43-55. son, A. J.; and Rodriguez, R. R. 1978: Distinguishing
Collins, W. E.; Raises, G. L.; and Canney, F. C. 1977: Succulent Plants From Crop and Woody Plants. Pho-
Airborne Spectroradiometer Discrimination of Vegeta- togramm. Eng. _4 Remote Sensing, vol. 44, no. 4, Apr.,
tion Anomalies Over Sulfide Mineralization: A Remote pp. 487-491.
Sensing Technique. Geology Society of America 90th Goetz, Alexander F. H.; Rock, Barrett N.; and Rowan,
Annual Meeting Program and Abstracts, vol. 9, no. 7, Lawrence C. 1983: Remote Sensing for Exploration: An
pp. 932-933. Overview. Econ. Geol. gJ Bull. Soc. Econ. Geol., vol. 78,
Condit, H. R. 1970: The Spectral Reflectance of Amer- no. 4, June-July, pp. 573-590.

18
Goetz, Alexander F. H.; and Rowan, Lawrence C. 1981: Kirchner, J. A.; Youkhana, S.; and Smith, J. A. 1982: Influ-
Geologic Remote Sensing. Science, vol. 211, no. 4484, ence of Sky Radiance Distribution on the Ratio Tech-
Feb. 20, pp. 781-791. nique for Estimating Bidirectional Reflectance. Pho-
Gower, J. R. F.; Lin, S.; Borstad, G. A. 1984: The Infor- togramm. Eng. 8_ Remote Sensing, vol. 48, no. 6, June,
mation Content of Different Optical Spectral Ranges for pp. 955-959.
Remote Chlorophyll Estimation in Coastal Waters. Int. Kneizys, F. X.; Shettle, E. P.; Gallery, W. O.; Chetwynd,
J. Remote Sensing, vol. 5, no. 2, Mar./Apr., pp. 349-364. J. H., Jr.; Abreu, L. W.; Selby, J. E. A.; Fenn,
Graetz, R. D.; and Gentle, M. R. 1982: The Relationships R. W.; and McClatchey, R. A. 1980: Atmospheric
Between Reflectance in the Landsat Wavebands and the
Transmittance/Radiance: Computer Code LO WTRAN 5.
Composition of an Australian Semi-Arid Shrub Range-
AFGL-TR-80-0067, U.S. Air Force, Feb. (Available
land. Photogramm. Eng. _4 Remote Sensing, vol. 48,
from DTIC as AD A088 215.)
no. ll, Nov., pp. 1721-1730.
Knipling, Edward B. 1970: Physical and Physiological Basis
Holben, Brent; and Fraser, Robert S. 1984: Red and Near- for the Reflectance of Visible and Near Infrared Radia-
Infrared Sensor Response to Off-Nadir Viewing. Int. J.
tion From Vegetation. Remote Sensing Environ., vol. 1,
Remote Sensing, vol. 5, no. 1, Jam-Feb., pp. 145-160.
no. 3, Summer, pp. 155-159.
Huck, F. O.; Davis, R. E.; Fales, C. L.; Aherron, R. M.;
Lillesaeter, O. 1982: Spectral Reflectance of Partly Trans-
Arduini, R. F.; and Samms, R. W. 1984: Study of
mitting Leaves: Laboratory Measurements and Math-
Remote Sensor Spectral Responses and Data Processing
ematical Modeling. Remote Sensing Environ., vol. 12,
Algorithms for Feature Classification. Opt. Eng., vol. 23,
no. 3, July, pp. 247-254.
no. 5, Sept./Oct., pp. 650 666.
Mack, A. R.; Brach, E. J.; and Rao, C. R. 1984: Appraisal of
Idso, S. B.; Pinter, P. J., Jr.; Jackson, R. D.; and Reginato,
Multispectral Scanner Systems From Analysis of High-
R. J. 1980: Estimation of Grain Yields by Remote
Resolution Plant Spectra. Int. J. Remote Sensing, vol. 5,
Sensing of Crop Senescence Rates. Remote Sensing
no. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 279-288.
Environ., vol. 9, no. 1, Feb., pp. 87-91.
McClellan, W. D.; Meiners, J. P.; and Orr, Don G. 1963:
Jacquez, John A.; and Kuppenheim, Hans F. 1955: Theory
Spectral Reflectance Studies on Plants. Proceedings of
of the Integrating Sphere. J. Opt. Sac. America, vol. 45,
the Second Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environ-
no. 6, June, pp. 460-470.
ment, Univ. of Michigan, pp. 403-413.
Judd, Deane B. 1967: Terms, Definitions, and Symbols in
Reflectometry. J. Opt. Sac. America, vol. 57, no. 4, Apr., Nicholls, R. W. 1984: Wavelength-Dependent Spectral Ex-

pp. 445-452. tinction of Atmospheric Aerosols. Appl. Opt., vol. 23,

Kahle, Anne B.; Goetz, Alexander F. H.; Paley, Helen no. 8, Apr. 15, pp. 1142-1143.

N.; Alley, Ronald E.; and Abbott, Elsa A. 1981: A Peterson, James T.; Flowers, Edwin C.; Berri,

Data Base of Geologic Field Spectra. Proceedings of the Guillermo J.; Reynolds, Cheryl L.; and Rudisill, John H.
Fifteenth International Symposium on Remote Sensing of 1981: Atmospheric Turbidity Over Central North Car-
Environment, Volume 1, Environmental Research Inst. olina. J. Appl. Meteorol., vol. 20, no. 3, Mar., pp. 229-
of Michigan, pp. 329-337. 241.

Kaufman, Yoram J. 1984: Atmospheric Effect on Spatial Podwysocki, M. H.; Segal, D. B.; and Abrams, M. J. 1983:
Resolution of Surface Imagery. Appl. Opt., vol. 23, Use of Multispectral Scanner Images for Assessment
no. 19, Oct. 1, pp. 3400-3408. of Hydrothermal Alteration in the Marysvale, Utah,
Kaufman, Yoram J.; and Joseph, Joachim H. 1982: Determi- Mining Area. Econ. Geol., vol. 78, no. 4, June-July,
nation of Surface Albedos and Aerosol Extinction Char- pp. 675-687.
acteristics From Satellite Imagery. J. Geophys. Res., Reginato, R. J.; Vedder, J. F.; Idso, S. B.; Jackson,
vol. 87, no. C2, Feb. 20, pp. 1287-1299. R. D.; Blanchard, M. B.; and Goettelman, R. 1977: An
Kaufman, Yoram J.; and Fraser, Robert S. 1983: Light Evaluation of Total Solar Reflectance and Spectral Band
Extinction by Aerosols During Summer Air Pollution. Ratioing Techniques for Estimating Soil Water Content.
J. Clim. gJ Appl. Meteorol., vol. 22, no. 10, Oct., J. Geophy. Res., vol. 82, no. 15, May, pp. 2101-2104.
pp. 1694 1706. Robinson, B. F.; and Biehl, L. L. 1979: Calibration Proce-
Kauth, R. J.; and Thomas, G. S. 1976: The Tasselled Cap-- dures for Measurement of Reflectance Factor in Remote
A Graphic Description of the Spectral-Temporal Devel- Sensing Field Research. Measurements of Optical Radia-
opment of Agricultural Crops as Seen by LANDSAT. tions, Volume 196 of Proceedings of the Society of Photo-
Symposium on Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Optical Instrumentation Engineers, Harold P. Field,
Data, 76CHl103-1 MPRSD, Inst. Electr. & Electron. Edward F. Zalewski, and Frederic Zweibaum, eds.,
Eng., Inc., pp. 4B-41-4B-51. pp. 1_26.
Kiang, Richard K. 1982: Atmospheric Effects on TM Mea- Salisbury, John W.; and Hunt, Graham R. 1968: Martian
surements: Characterization and Comparison With the Surface Materials: Effect of Particle Size on Spectral Be-
Effects on MSS. IEEE Trans. Geophys. _ Remote Sens- havior. Science, vol. 161, no. 3839, July 26, pp. 365-366.
ing, vol. GE-20, no. 3, July, pp. 365-370. Schappell, Roger T.; Tietz, John C.; Hulstrom, Roland L.;
Kimes, D. S. 1983: Dynamics of Directional Reflectance Cunningham, Robert A.; and Reel, Gwynn M. 1976:
Factor Distributions for Vegetation Canopies. Appl. Preliminary Experiment Definition for Video Landmark
Opt., vol. 22, no. 9, May 1, pp. 1364-1372. Acquisition and Tracking. NASA CR-145122.

lg
Shettle,EricP.; andFenn,RobertW. 1979:Models .for Turner, Robert E. 1975: Atmospheric Effects in Multispee-
the Aerosols of the Lower Atmosphere and the Effects of tral Remote Sensor Data. ERIM 109600-15-F (Contract
Humidity Variations on Their Optical Properties. AFGL- NAS9-14123), Environmental Research Inst. of Michi-
TR-79-0214, U.S. Air Force, Sept. (Available from gan, May. (Available as NASA CR-141863.)
DTIC as AD A085 951.) Vane, Gregg; Billingsley, Fred C.; and Dunne, James A.
Siegal, Barry S.; and (]oetz, Alexander F. H. 1977: Effect 1982: Observational Parameters for Remote Sensing in
of Vegetation on Rock and Soil Type Discrimination. the Next Decade. Advanced Multispectral Remote Sensing
Photogramm. Eng. (_ Remote Sensing, vol. 43, no. 2, Technology and Applications, Volume 345 of Proceedings
Feb., pp. 191 196. of SPIE-- The International Society for Optical Engineer-
Slater, Philip N. 1980: Remote Sensing Optics and Optical ing, Ken J. Ando, ed., pp. 52-65.
Systems. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Inc. Verhoef, W.; and Bunnik, N. J. J. 1974: Spectral Reflectance
Smith, J. A.; Lin, Tzeu Lie; and Ranson, K. J. 1980: Measurements on Agricultural Field Crops During the
The Lambertian Assumption and Landsat Data. Pho- Growing Season. NIWARS Publ. 31, Netherlands Inter-
togramm. Eng. _J Remote Sensing, vol. 46, no. 9, Sept., departmental Working Community for the Application
pp. 1183-1189. of Remote Sensing Techniques (Kanaalweg 3, Delft, The
Smith, J. A.: and Ranson, K. J. 1979. Multispectral Resource Netherlands), Dec.
Sampler (MRS) Proof of Concept Literature Survey of Vlcek, J. 1972: Considerations in Determination, Evaluation
Bidirectional Reflectance. NASA CR-170599. and Computer Banking of Spectral Signatures of Natural
Stoner, Eric R.; and Baumgardner, Marion F. 1980: Physio- Objects. FMR-22, Forest Management Inst., (Ottawa,
chemical, Site and Bidirectional Reflectance Factor Char- Ontario), Mar.
acteristics of Uniformly Moist Soils. SR-PO-00431 (Con-
tract NAS9-15466), Purdue Univ., Feb. (Available as
NASA CR- 160571.)

_0
Spectral Reflectance Data 19 Dehydrated Cotton Leaf ...... 15
20 Fallow Field ............ 40
Spectral reflectance data are presented for 156 21 Flax ............... 33
targets. The targets are grouped into six major cat- 22 Oats ............... 33
egories: agriculture; trees; shrubs and grasses; rocks 23 Oats ............... 50
and soils; water, snow, and clouds; and miscella- 24 Oats ............... 38
neous. Within each category the targets are arranged 25 Peanuts .............. 33
alphabetically with appropriate adjectives that help 26 Potatoes ............. 46
to describe the state of the target. Of the 156 data 27 Potatoes ............. 50
sets, 59 represent laboratory measurements. Most of 28 Rapeseed ............. 38
these occur in either the tree or the rocks and soils
29 Sorghum ............. 7
category. The laboratory data are identified by the 30 Soybeans ............. 29
words sample, leaf, or needles. As previously men- 31 Soybeans ............. 38
tioned, laboratory and field data are not compatible, 32 Sugar Beets ............ 50
since they represent entirely different environments. 33 Sugar Beets ............ 33
The reflectance data for each target are presented 34 Sugarcane Leaf ........... 14
in both a graphical and a tabular format. On each 35 Sugarcane Leaf ........... 19
graph the source reference number is given along 36 Sugarcane ............. 19
with the date of measurement and target location, 37 Sunflower ............. 23
where available, and any other pertinent information 38 Tobacco .............. 26
concerning the target condition or viewing geometry. 39 Tomatoes ............. 46
The supporting information provided here has been 40 Tomatoes ............. 33
limited to the more commonly measured items, and 41 Watermelon Leaf .......... 14
the reader may refer to the original source when more 42 Wheat ............... 50
specific data are needed. Each reflectance curve was 43 Seedling Wheat .......... 3
presented by its author as being representative of a 44 Young Wheat ........... 11
given target; this report has simply standardized all 45 Booted Wheat ........... 6
of the data to a common format. 46 Mature Wheat ........... 11
An index of targets and a numbered list of refer- 47 Mature Wheat ........... 3
ence sources precede the spectral reflectance data. 48 Wheat Stubble ........... 40

Index of Spectral Reflectance Targets

Trees

Agriculture
No. Target Ref.

49 Trembling Aspen .......... 51

No. Target Ref. 50 Birch Leaves ............ 30
1 Alfalfa .............. 9 51 Redblush Citrus .......... 17
2 Mature Alfalfa ........... 6 52 American Elm Leaf ......... 24
53 Balsam Fir ............ 57
3 Dry Alfalfa Hay .......... 37
4 Barley .............. 38 54 Silver Maple Leaf ......... 24
5 Barley .............. 50 55 Sugar Maple Leaf ......... 52
6 Stem Extension Barley ....... 3 56 Burr Oak Leaf ........... 36
7 Ripe Barley ............ 6 57 Live Oak ............. 39
8 Ripe Barley ............ 3 58 Orange Leaf ............ 56
9 Bean Leaf ............. 26 59 Peach Leaf ............ 56
10 Dehydrated Bean Leaf ....... 26 60 Dead Ponderosa Pine Needles .... 22
11 Beans ............... 50 61 Ponderosa Pine Needles ....... 22
12 Beets ............... 46 62 Ponderosa Pine Needles ....... 55
13 Cabbage ............. 46 63 Red Pine Needles ......... 36
14 Cantaloupe Leaf .......... 20 64 White Pine ............ 51
15 Tall Green Corn .......... 27 65 Red Spruce ............ 57
16 Silage Corn ............ 27 66 Sycamore Leaf ........... 49
17 Yellow Corn ............ 27 67 Dehydrated Sycamore Leaf ..... 49
18 Cotton Leaf ............ 15 68 Tulip Tree Leaf .......... 24

21
 ShrubsandGrasses 115 Shale ............... 21
116 Dry Silt Sample .......... 47
No. Target Ref. 117 Wet Silt Sample .......... 47
118 Dry Silt .............. 8
69 Cenizo .............. 39
119 Dry Lacustrine Silt and Clay .... 45
70 Average Desert Leaves ....... 4 120 Soil Sample ............ 43
71 Grass ............... 40
121 Soil Sample ............ 43
72 Grass ............... 44
122 Soil Sample ............ 25
73 Kentucky Blue Grass ........ 50 123 Disked Bare Soil .......... 18
74 Red Fescue Grass ......... 50
124 Dry Pedocal-Type Soil ....... 8
75 Blue Grama Grass ......... 48
125 Dry Chernozem-Type Soil ...... 8
76 Perennial Rye Grass ........ 50 126 Dry Laterite-Type Soil ....... 8
77 Dry Lichen Sample ......... 13 127 Dry Clay Soil Sample ........ 24
78 Lichen Mat ............ 12
128 Wet Clay Soil Sample ........ 24
79 Manzanita ............. 44
129 Dry Lake Soil Sample ........ 25
80 Mesquite ............. 39 130 Chilean Nitrate Soil Sample ..... 25
81 Honey Mesquite .......... 16 131 Salt Pool Soil Sample ........ 25
82 Prickly Pear ............ 19 132 Dry Sandy Soil Sample ....... 24
83 Dry Sage ............. 44 133 Wet Sandy Soil Sample . . . .... 24
84 Average Subalpine Slope Leaves . . 4 134 Syenite .............. 5
85 Silverleaf Sunflower ......... 39
135 Dry Glacial Till .......... 45
86 Burned Forest Surface ....... 12
136 Rhyolite Tuff Sample ........ 1

Rocks and Soils

Water, Snow, and Clouds

No. Target Ref.

No. Target Ref.
87 Arkose .............. 21
137 Altocumulus Clouds ........ 28
88 Basalt Sample ........... 41
138 Stratus Clouds ........... 28
89 Red Cinder Basalt Sample ...... 1
139 Cirrostratus Clouds ......... 28
90 Gray Basalt Sample ........ 1
91 Breccia .............. 32 140 Middle Layer Clouds ........ 34
141 Dense Ice Cloud Sample ....... 58
92 Dry Red Clay Sample ........ 47
142 Hoarfrost Sample .......... 58
93 Wet Red Clay Sample ....... 47
143 Snow Sample ........... 53
94 Quartz Diorite ........... 5
95 Granite .............. 54 144 Typical Snow Sample ........ 35
96 Granite .............. 5 145 Fresh Snow Sample ......... 35
146 Two Day Old Snow Sample ..... 35
97 Biotite Granite Sample ....... 41
98 Gravel .............. 40 147 Dry Fresh Snow .......... 23
148 Wet Snow ............. 23
99 Glaciofluvial Sand and Gravel .... 45
149 Water .............. 40
100 Limestone ............. 21
150 Clear Lake Water ......... 2
101 Limestone Sample ......... 47
151 Turbid River Water ........ 2
102 Monzonite ............. 5
103 Quartz Monzonite 5
104 Obsidian Sample .......... 1
Miscellaneous
105 Unaltered Rocks .......... 42
106 Altered Rocks ........... 42
107 Rhyolite Sample .......... 41 No. Target Ref.
108 Beach Sand Sample ......... 25 152 Asphalt .............. 40
109 Carbonate Beach Sand Sample .... 10 153 Blacktop ............. 9
110 Quartz Beach Sand Sample ..... 10 154 Concrete ............. 40
111 Quartz Beach Sand Sample ..... 10 155 Shingles .............. 40
112 Dry Sand ............. 8 156 Artificial Turf ........... 31
113 Gypsum Sand Sample ........ 25
114 Silica Sand Sample ......... 25
 Reference Sources for Spectral Reflectance 13. Gates, David M.; Keegan, Harry 3.; Schleter, John C.;
Data and Weidner, Victor R.: Spectral Properties of Plants.
1. Adams, John B.; and Filice, Alan L.: Spectral Re- Appl. Opt., vol. 4, no. 1, Jan. 1965, pp. 11-20.
flectance 0.4 to 2.0 Microns of Silicate Rock Powders. 14. Gansman, H. W.; Allen, W. A.; Wiegand, C. L.;
J. Geophys. Res., vol. 72, no. 22, Nov. 15, 1967, Escobar, D. E.; Rodriguez, R. R.; and Richardson, A. J.:
pp. 5705-5715. The Leaf Mesophylls of Twenty Crops, Their Light Spec-
2. Bartolucci, Luis A.; Robinson, Barrett F.; and Silva, tra, and Optical and Geometrical Parameters. Tech. Bull.
LeRoy F.: Field Measurements of the Spectral Response No. 1465 (NASA Contract No. R-09-038-002), U.S. Dep.
of Natural Waters. Photogramm. Eng. _ Remote Sens- Agriculture, Mar. 1973.
ing, vol. 43, no. 5, May 1977, pp. 595-598. 15. Gausman, Harold W.: Leaf Reflectance of Near-Infra-
3. Bauer, M. E.; McEwen, M. C.; Malila, W. A.; and red. Photogramm. Eng., vol. XL, no. 2, Feb. 1974,
Harlan, J. C.: Design, Implementation, and Results of pp. 183-191.
LACIE Field Research. LARS Tech. Rep. 102579 16. Gausman, H. W.; Everitt, 3. H.; Gerbermann,
(Contract NAS9-15466), Purdue Univ., Oct. 1979, A. H.; and Escobar, D. E.: Leaf Spectral Character-
pp. 1037-1066. (Available as NASA TM-80811.) istics of Nine Woody Plant Species From Texas Range-
4. Billings, W. D.; and Morris, Robert J.: Reflection of lands. Remote Sensing of Earth Resources, Volume V,
Visible and Infrared Radiation From Leaves of Different F. Shahrokhi, ed., Univ. of Tennessee Space Inst., 1976,
Ecological Groups. American J. Bot., vol. 38, May 1951, pp. 333-347.
pp. 327-331.
17. Gausman, H. W.; Escobar, D. E.; and Wiegand, C. L.:
5. Blom, Ronald G.; Abrams, Michael J.; and Adams, Reflectance and Photographic Characteristics of Three
Herbert G.: Spectral Reflectance and Discrimination Citrus Varieties for Discrimination Purposes. Remote
of Plutonic Rocks in the 0.45 to 2.45 /_m Region. J. Sensing of Earth Resources, Volume VI, F. Shahrokhi,
Geophys. Res., vol. 85, no. B5, May 10, 1980, pp. 2638- ed., Univ. of Tennessee Space Inst., 1977, pp. 341-355.
2648.
18. Gausman, H. W.; Leamer, R. W.; Noreiga, J. R.;
6. Bowker, D: E.; Davis, R. E.; Von Ofenheim, W. H. C.; Rodriguez, R. R.; and Wiegand, C. L.: Field-Measured
and Myrick, D. L.: Estimation of Spectral Reflectance Spectroradiometric Reflectances of Disked and Non-
Signatures From Spectral Radiance Profiles. Proceedings disked Soil With and Without Wheat Straw. Soil Sci.
of the Seventeenth International Symposium on Remote Soc. America J., vol. 41, 1977, pp. 793-796.
Sensing of Environment, Volume II, Environmental Re-
19. Gausman, H. W.; Escobar, D. E.; Everitt, J. H.;
search Inst. of Michigan, 1983, pp. 795-814.
Richardson, A. J.; and Rodriguez, R. R.: Distinguish-
7. Castruccio, P. A.: End-to-End Design Concept. Remote
ing Succulent Plants From Crop and Woody Plants.
Sensing of Earth From Space, Roger A. Breckenridge,
Photogramm. Eng. 8Y Remote Sensing, vol. 44, no. 4,
ed., American Inst. Aeronaut. & Astronaut., c.1979,
Apr. 1978, pp. 487-491.
pp. 221-230. (Available as AIAA Paper 78-1738.)
20. Gansman, H. W.; Escobar, D. E.; Rodrignez, R. R.;
8. Condit, H. R.: The Spectral Reflectance of American
Thomas, C. E.; and Bowen, R. L.: Ozone Damage
Soils. Photooramm. Eng., vol. 36, no. 8, Aug. 1970,
Detection in Cantaloupe Plants. Photogramm. Eng. (_
pp. 955-966.
Remote Sensing, vol. 44, no. 4, Apr. 1978, pp. 481-485.
9. Coulson, K. L.; and Reynolds, David W.: The Spectral
21. Goetz, Alexander 17. H.: Remote Sensing Geology:
Reflectance of Natural Surfaces. J. Appl. Meteorol.,
Landsat and Beyond. Proceedings, Caltech/JPL Con-
vol. i0, no. 6, Dec. 1971, pp. 1285-1295.
ference on Image Processing Technology, Data Sources
10. Davis, C. F.; Schuchman, R. A.; and Suits, G. H.: The
and Software for Commercial and Scientific Applica-
Use of Remote Sensing in the Determination of Beach
tions, Gunther H. Redmann, ed., JPL SP-43-30 (Con-
Sand Parameters. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Inter-
tract NAS7-100), California Inst. Technol., Nov. 1976,
national Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment,
pp. 8-1-8-8.
Volume II, Environmental Research Inst. of Michigan,
22. Heller, R. C.: Previsual Detection of Ponderosa Pine
1979, pp. 775-788.
Trees Dying From Bark Beetle Attack. Proceedings of
11. De Boer, Th. A.; Bunnik, N. J. J.; Van Kasteren,
the Fifth Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment,
H. W. J.; Uenk, D.; Verhoef, W.; and De Loor, G. P.:
Univ. of Michigan, 1968, pp. 387-434.
Investigation Into the Spectral Signature of Agricultural
23. Hodarev, Yu. K.; Dunaev, B. S.; Rodlonov, B. N.;
Crops During Their State of Growth. Proceedings of
the Ninth International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Serebryakyan, A. L.; Tchesnokov, Yu. M.; and Etkin,
Environment, Volume II, Environmental Research Inst. V. S.: Some Possible Uses of Optical and Radio-Physical
of Michigan, 1974, pp. 1441-1455. Remote Measurements for Earth Investigations. Pro-
ceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Re-
12. Fuller, Stephan P.; and Rouse, Wayne R.: Spectral
mote Sensing of Environment, Volume I, Univ. of Michi-
Reflectance Changes Accompanying a Post-Fire Recov-
gan, 1971, pp. 99-118.
ery Sequence in a Subarctic Spruce Lichen Woodland.
Remote Sensing Environ., vol. 8, no. 1, Feb. 1979, 24. Hoffer, R. M.; and Johannsen, C. J.: Ecological Poten-
pp. 11-23. tials in Spectral Signature Analysis. Remote Sensing in

23
 Ecology, Philip L. Johnson, ed., Univ. of Georgia Press, 39. Richardson, Arthur J.; Escobar, David E.; Gausman,
c.1969, pp. 1-16. Harold W.; and Everitt, James H.: Comparison of

25. Hovis, W. A., Jr.: Infrared Spectral Reflectance of Some LANDSAT-2 and Field Spectrometer Reflectance Sig-
natures of South Texas Rangeland Plant Communities.
Common Minerals. Appl. Opt., vol. 5, no. 2, Feb. 1966,
Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data and Soil In-
pp. 245-248.
formation Systems and Remote Sensing and Soil Survey,
26. Knipling, Edward B.: Physical and Physiological Basis
for the Reflectance of Visible and Near-Infrared Radia- P. G. Burroff and D. B. Morrison, eds., Purdue Univ.,
1980, pp. 88-97.
tion From Vegetation. Remote Sensing Environ., vol. 1,
no. 3, Summer 1970, pp. 155-159. 40. Root, R. R.; and Miller, L. D.: Identification of Ur-

27. Kondrat'ev, K. Ya., ed.: Radiation Characteristics of the ban Watershed Units Using Remote Maltispectral Sens-

Atmosphere and the Earth's Surface. NASA TT F-678, ing. Completion Rep. No, 29, Environmental Resources
1973. Center, Colorado State Univ., Jan. 31, 1972. (Available
28. Kondratyev, K. Ya.; Binenko, V. I.; Vasilyev, O. V.; from NTIS as PB 209 639.)
and Grishechkin, V. S.: Spectral Optical Properties of 41. Ross, Howard P.; Adler, Joel E. M.; and Hunt, Graham
Stratus Clouds From Aircraft Observations. Remote R.: A Statistical Analysis of the Reflectance of Igneous
Sensing of Earth Resources, Volume IV, F. Shahrokhi, Rocks From 0.2 to 2.65 Microns. Icarus, vol. 11, no. 1,
ed., Univ. of Tennessee Space Inst., 1975, pp. 177-201. July 1969, pp. 46-54.
29. Lemeur, Raoul; and Rosenberg, Norman J.: Reflec- 42. Sabins, Floyd F., Jr.: Remote Sensing--Principles and
tant Induced Modification of the Radiation Balance for Interpretation. W. H. Freeman & Co., Inc., c.1978.
Increased Crop Water Use Efficiency. Heat and Mass 43. Seubert, C. E.; Baumgardner, M. F.; Weismiller,
Transfer in the Biosphere: Part 1--Transfer Processes in R. A.; and Kirschner, F. R.: Mapping and Estimating
the Plant Environment, D. A. deVries and N. H. Afgan, Areal Extent of Severely Eroded Soils of Selected Sites
eds., Scripta Book Co., 1975, pp._ 479-488. in Northern Indiana. Machine Processing of Remotely
30. Lillesaeter, O.: Spectral Reflectance of Partly Transmit- Sensed Data--Proceedings, I. M. Tendam and D. B. Mor-
ting Leaves: Laboratory Measurements and Mathemat- rison, eds., 79 CH 1430-8 MPRSD, Inst. Electr. & Elec-
ical Modeling. Remote Sensing Environ., vol. 12, no. 3, tron. Eng., Inc., 1979, pp. 234-239.
July 1982, pp. 247-254. 44. Siegal, Barry S.; and Goetz, Alexander F. H.: Effect
31. Lillesand, Thomas M.; and Kiefer, Ralph W.: Remote of Vegetation on Rock and Soil Type Discrimination.
Sensing and Image Interpretation. John Wiley & Sons, Photogramm. Eng. g_ Remote Sensing, vol. 43, no. 2,
Inc., 1979. Feb. i§77, pp. 191-196.
32. Marts, Ronald W.: Application of Remote-Sensing Tech- 45. Singhroy, V.; and Duggin, M.: Measurements of the
niques to the Geology of the Bonanza Volcanic Center. Characteristic Reflectance Spectra of Surficial Deposits.
Remote Sensing Rep. 73-1 (Grant NGL 06-001-015), Proceedings of the Seventh Canadian Symposium o n Re-
Dep. of Geology, Colorado School of Mines, Mar. 1973. mote Sensing, William G. Best and Sue-Ann Wese-
(Available as NASA CR-133499.) lake, eds., Manitoba Remote Sensing Centre, 1981,
33. McClellan, W. D.; Meiners, J. P.; and Orr, Don G.: pp. 341-348.
Spectral Reflectance Studies on Plants. Proceedings of 46. DEMETER--An Earth Resources Satellite System. Stan-
the Second Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environ- ford Univ., June 1968.
ment, Univ. of Michigan, 1963, pp. 403-413.
47. Tanguay, Marc G.; Hoffer, Roger M.; and Miles,
34. Novosel'tsev, Ye. P.: Spectral Reflectivity of Clouds.
Robert D.: Multispectral Imagery and Automatic Clas-
NASA TT F-328, 1965.
sification of Spectral Response for Detailed Engineer-
35. O'Brien, Harold W.; and Munis, Richard H.: Red and ing Soils Mapping. Proceedings of the Sixth Interna:
Near-Infrared Spectral Reflectance of Snow. Res. Rep. tional Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment,
332, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research & Engineering Volume 1, Univ. of Michigan, 1969, pp. 33-63.
Lab., Mar. 1975. (Available from DTIC as AD A007
48. Tucker, Compton J.: Use of Near Infrared/Red Radiance
732.) Ratios for Estimating Vegetation Biomass and Physiolog-
36. Olson, C. E., Jr.: The Energy Flow Profile in Remote
ical Status. NASA TM X-71388, 1977.
Sensing. Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Re-
49. Tucker, Compton J.: Post Senescent Grass Canopy
mote Sensing of Environment, Univ. of Michigan, 1963,
Remote Sensing. Remote Sensing Environ., vol. 7, no. 3,
pp. 187-199.
Aug. 1978, pp. 203-210.
37. Pease, Robert W.: Plant Tissue and the Color Infrared
50. Vane, Gregg; Billingsley, Fred C.; and Dunne, James A.:
Record. Interagency Rep. NASA-147 (Contract No.
Observational Parameters for Remote Sensing in the
R-Og-O20-O24(A/1), Task No. 160-75-01-32-10), Dep. of
Next Decade. Advanced Multispectral Remote Sensing
Geography, Univ. of California, Feb. 1969. (Available as
Technology and Applications, Volume 345 of Proceedings
NASA CR-125657.)
of SPIE--The International Society for Optical Engineer-
38. Rao, V. R.; Brach, E. J.; and Mack, A. R.: Crop Dis-
ing, Ken J. Ando, ed., c.1982, pp. 52-65.
criminability in the Visible and Near Infrared Regions.
51. Vlcek, J.: Difficulties in Determining Meaningful Spec-
Photogramm. Eng. _ Remote Sensing, vol. 44, no. 9,
tral Signatures of Forest Tree Canopies. Proceedings
Sept. 1978, pp. 1179-1184.

24
 of Symposium on Remote Sensing and Photo Interpreta- on Forest Stands. Proceedings of the Sixth Interna-
tion, Volume II, Canadian Inst. of Surveying, Oct. 1974, tional Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment,
pp. 805-810. Volume II, Univ. of Michigan, 1969, pp. 1169-1178.
52. Ward, Jennifer M.: The Significance of Changes in In- 56. Wiegand, C. L.; Gausman, H. W.; and Allen, W. A.:
frared Reflectance in Sugar Maple (ACER Saccharum Physiological Factors and Optical Parameters as Bases
Marsh), Induced by Soil Conditions of Drought and of Vegetation Discrimination and Stress Analysis. Oper-
Salinity. Proceedings of the Sixth International Sympo- ational Remote Sensing: An Interactive Seminar To Eval-
sium on Remote Sensing of Environment, Volume II, uate Current Capabilities, American Soc. Photogramme-
Univ. of Michigan, 1969, pp. 1205-1226. try, 1972, pp. 82-100.
53. Warren, Stephen G.: Optical Properties of Snow. Rev. 57. Yost, Edward; and Wenderoth, Sondra: The Reflectance
Geophys. FJ Space Phys., vol. 20, no. 1, Feb. 1982, Spectra of Mineralized Trees. Proceedings of the Seventh
pp. 67-89. International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environ-
54. Watson, Robert D.: Spectral Reflectance and Photo- ment, Volume I, Univ. of Michigan, 1971, pp. 269-284.
metric Properties of Selected Rocks. Remote Sensing 58. Zander, R.: Spectral Scattering Properties of Ice Clouds
Environ., vol. 2, no. 2, Feb. 1972, pp. 95-100. and Hoarfrost. J. Geophys. Res., vol. 71, no. 2, Jan. 15,
55. Wert, S. L.: A System for Using Remote Sensing Tech- 1966, pp. 375-378.
niques To Detect and Evaluate Air Pollution Effects

25
 NO. 1 - ALFnLFR

Davis, CA
30 ° Sol. elev., crop tft. high.
Ref. 9

0
(-
(D

0
(D
w--
(D
rY

I 1 I I I I
•5 1.0 1.2
Wavelength,ezra

R R

I
_°_
_°_

_°_
_°_
I.
1.
• 1 1.I
1

26
 NO.2 - MATURE ALFALFA

.8
Imperial Valley, CA
May 1377
Atmospheric corrected aircraft data.
Ref. 6
.6
q)
0
(-
0

0
0

q)
FY
.2

, I , I
1.0 1.2
Wovelength,/zm

m
R _x _R X _R _X _R X _R

i i i iIii!I
'i'ili
27
 NO.3 - DRY ALFALFA HAY

.8
Riverside, CA
Ref. :32

.6 w

QP
C.)
c-
OD
0 .4
(1)

rY
.2 m

0 , I , , , I I ....i I
.:3 •5 i .0 I .2
Wavelength,/zm

R _X _R _X m
R _x R
w

28
 NO._ - BflRLEY

.8
Aug.-Sept 1976
Ref. 38

,6
(1)
0
(-
(3
0 ,L_
(1)

%
fY
.2

0 ,I,IllllJl,lllll
.3 •5 1.0 1.5

WGvelength,/zm
__x _R X R _X _R R X Z
.7t
.7

.2{

i
_9
 NO,5 - BARLEY

.8
Ref. SO

.6
(D
0
(-
0

C) .u_
(D

(D
pr"
.2

I
•S 1.0 1 .S 2.0 2.5
Wavelen gth,,u,m
X R __x R ._.x R ;k R X R

:;J

il Ii
"i
"1
"1
°1
"1
°1

ii
"i
"i
"i
"i

if!
:i
i
i

3O
 NO.6 - STEM EXTENSION BARLEY

.8 m
Hond County, SD
June 18, t376
Ref 3

.6

0
c-
O

(D

(D
CK

!
I

0 I I I I Jlllllllll ,I,IlJl
.3 .5 I .0 I .5 2,0 2.5
WGvelength,#m
_R _X _R _x _R _X _R

.I _ .I
:i a _" •I f
°1i _ °

i
.I •,. ,._ • 1 I[ •

e_

.I
.I • 1 I I

:I
.I _ "]
:I •1

.I "; !_ I .L
•_ .x
:_I ,1 - ,:
:I •; .x
"; "_
.[
' .L. I
• .

illl
.I
.I
.I
.I t'_
.! _'_
!,1 _ .I
!.1 _ ,I
e
333 t:t J !.q [ .t

31
 NO.? - RIPE BARLEY

.8
Imperial Valley, CA
May 1377
Atmospheric corrected aircraft data.
Ref. 6
.B
q)
0
(-

0 .4
(1)
N--
(1)
n--
.2

0 I l I I 1 I I i I
.3 .B 1.0 1.2
Wavelength,/_m

R R R

if!i!i Ii

i
if!i!
!iil i"iI
.71
.?J
.?I

32
 NO.8 - RIPE BIqRLEY

.8
Hand County, SD
June 18, 1.9"26
Ref. 3

.6
(].)
0
c-

% -%/
D2
.2

0
•3 .5 1.0 I .5 2.0 2,5
Wavelength,/zm
), R x _R _X _R _x _R _x _R
)
.I
1. ",J _

!I!I
.I
)
°I _ I
_._
Ol

*'4 i
_'_ "I

•1
.I
._
.i
t".L t o,

e,

°1
.I
• _._ °l
:: .333 l:I J o!

33
 NO,9 - BERN LEFIF

.8 Ref. 26

.6
(D
0
(-
©
-I--'
(D
(1)
'--I--
(1)
rr"
.2

i 1
•S 1.0 1 .S 2.0 2 .S
Wovelength,/zm
_R _x R R R R

' ii!
.7 I

:71
.1
.t
)
i!I lil
:1
:I
!i "li
!! i!!1,1 iill . 16 1

34
 NO, 10 - DEHYDRFITED BERN LEAF

.8
Dehydrated to 10% water.
Ref. 26

.6
(1)
0
c-
O

0
(D r----
(D
ol
.2

•5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Wovelength,/zm
X R R R R m
R

.i
1 |
I
";

"_

:i
°!
°1
°1
,I
11 ii!_
t .u,

1.L I

.I
.I
.I
,1
.!
:7
!iiil
!i
I
I:
i
$5
 NO. 11 - BEANS

.8--
Ref. SO

.6
(])
0
c-

© ,4:

(1)
r'r"
.2

j_
0 I I I

.3 .S 1.0 1 .S 2.0
WGvelength,/zm
_R __x % R _x R

:]_

ili
X 1"l,e
X_'X

"_,
,'_Qt

.,._
u
hX,_
_ ic

I[
a'- J

,L."

i!ll "},) t_X

lrc%_

36
 NO. 12 - BEETS

.8
Ref. _6

.6
(1.)
0
E
U

0
(1)

@
n/
.2

I I I I

Wavelength,/zm

_R X _R

if!
w _

ii
39
 NO, 13 - CABBRGE

.8
Ref. [t6

.6
(1)
0
(-
[3

0
(1)

(1)
rY
.2

0 i I I I I
.3
Wavelength,/zm

R R X R
_x R _x X R __X m

-,

!,

:i i!
!iiiiill
ilil
IiiIi' lili
i,

,: "I
°i
ol
ol
,I
.6:

38
 NO. 1_ - CFINTFILOUPE LEF:tF

.8
Ref. 20

.6
(1)
©
(-
_D

©
(1)

.2

%
0 1 I, I ! l l,,, I,,,, 1, ,, JJ
.3 .5 1.0 1 .IS 2.0 2 .S
Wavelen gth,,u,m
R R _R

"_i_
: s
i:i
i!l
i!i
!!t!
ii
li li!i
.31
.U_l .60
lli
39
 NO, 15 - TALL GREEN CORN

.8
Russia
Ref. 27

.6

0
c-
O
0 ,u_

.2

0 I I 1 I
•3 .5 1.0 1.2

Wavelength,/4m

_x _R ), R ?, R _ _a R

i 17
18
1 :9l
.!i
'!! 7
'II!!
!Tt_
i

I
iiil
t0
 NO, 16 - S1_LAGE CORN

.8
Russia
Ref. 2?

.6
(D
0
c-
O
-+_
0
q)

q.)
FK

.0
Wavelength,/zm

R X R X R R X R
39 r"

g.

i
t_

r"

r"
= .9!
,TL

ili,i
,
gX

<X

£.',T

K_

<X

4_ /-

41
 NO. 17 - YELLON CORN

.8
Russia
Ref. 2?

.6
(D
0
(--
©

0
G)

(1)
rY
.2

I I I I I I I I
.5 i.0 1.2

Wavelength,/zm

_x R R R ?, R ), R

ili .tl
1
:_
.'TL i:li

.i
!
il

ii •i!!
42
 NO, 18 - COTTON LEFIF

-8
Mar. u_, 1968
Ref. 15

.6
(1)
0
(--

0 .u_
q.)

(1.)
FY
.2

0 I I I I J I I I I !

1.0 1 .S 2.0 2.5

Wavelength,/zm
_R _x R X _R __x R

Ri
.501

::lli •

.i
i

1
:4

.13

il ,l!l
1 .gE a

45
 NO. 19 - DEHYDRI:::ITEB COTTON LEflF

.8
Mar. 11, 1968
Ref. 1S

.6
(1)
0
c

(D

C12
.2 /\\

0 ,,,,I,,,,lll,,I,,,
1.0 1.5 2.0
Wavelength,/zm
R _x _R R R
x _R _X N

.u,73
_ :8_
._

• If Ig .'T"
!!
• _ ,'r A

• LJE •

L .

!I
1.1
C_
'..I ( " .CXA
'_.1
'_.1 _1 II I

i_ _. "_

,,. °
i_ :,xx
 NO, 20 - FALLON F [ ELD

.8
Denver, CO
Ref. 40

.6
®
0
¢-
(3

0 .4
(1)

®
O/
.2

0 i 1 , i i i I i I
•3 .5 1.0 1.2
Wavelength,/zm

X _R _x R ), R ), R X R

17_ :
)49
3_4
_3
I! 'I!
:
!°l
i!i I

i!llll!l
' ,l.i!
,71
:!

i!l ,ii I
1

45
 NO,21 - FLAX

.8 n
Beltsville, MD
Summer, 1962
Ref. 33

.6
q)
(9
(-

4J
0 .u_
(D
N--
(D
(Y
.2

J%
0 I I I I ,ll,lllll I 1 1
.3 .5 I .0 i .5 2.0
Wovelength,/zm
_R R __x R R R
.1

'ill
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.!
"t
• l

I.86 .1
.I .1
I.I •j
°

ii!!l!ili
.I

.'

e,

.I
.I
.I
i

I1
46
 N0,22 - 0RTS

.8
Beltsville, MD
Summer, 1962
Ref. 33

.6
@
O
(-
(3
-_J
O
(1)
N--
(1)
fY
.2

, 1I I I
•5 1.0 1.5 2.0
WGvelength,/zm
X R X R R _x R X R

!l it )1
}1
i

:l

t t

:l l li
m
ii
t
}1
};
}J
}1
}1
}1
};

47
 NO. 23 - ORTS

.8
Ref. 50

.6
(D
0
c-
O

(O .u,
q)

(1.)
FY
.2

l,l,l,lJLlJ,,,I,,, I
1.0 I .5 2.0 2.S
Wavelength,/zm
X R X _R _R ._X R X R

_ _ il !!!
8;;i .,
Ii

!i
.q

"I
"I
• ii

48
 NO, 2L_ - OFITS

.8
Aug.-Sept. 1376
Ref. 38

.6
(1)
0
(--
©

0 m

(D

(1)
rY J

.2

I 1
•5 I .0 1.5 2.0
Wmvelength,/zm
R ;k R R R ), R

I!I
"_"_ i :7u_

I
:I_
• 1' 1.86

ILl
:;_QQ::q_

:11
.i

:I "_t_
1.I_
1 1 II:_I"hA_
• _. g.. ,,.j

49
 N0,25 - PERNUTS

.8
Beltsville, MD
Summer, 1962
Ref. 33

.6 m

(D
0
c-
O
(J .4
@
N--
¢)
Pr"
.2

0 IIII I
•5 I .0 I .5 2.0 2.5
Wove ength,/zm
__x _R x _R w
R R

iil
i
:_

51)
 110,26 - POTATOES

.8
Ref. u_6

.6
(D
0
(-
(3
0
(1)

(P
fY
.2

0 I I I L I I , !
.3 .S 1.0 I .2
Wave ength,/_m

R _x R
ss

li!I
iii t

51
 NO.2? - POTRTOES

.8 m
Ref. SO

q.)
0
(-
©

0 .L_ --
(D
,.+_
(D
cY

0 i 1
.3 •S I .0 i .S 2.0
Wavelength,/.zm
X R X R 7, R ), R R

- - il 329 167

ii i "i

.7

i,iii
i li lilli

52
 N0,28 - RRPESEED

.8
Aug.-Sept. 1976
Ref. 38

.6
@
0
(-
E)
-i--.-i
0
qP
N--
@
cY
.2

0
r
I111 I
•5 1.0 1 .S 2.S
Wavelength,/zm
% R % R % R X R % R

•
---!iii-
-ii-I
ii- i

.I
ii' i
' 1

53
 N0,29 - SORGHUM

.8 Bushland, TX
May 22, 19? u,
Ref. ?

.6
(D
(J
c-
O
0 .u_
(1.)

®
Od
.2

•5 t .0 I .5 2.0 2.5
Wovelen gth,/zm

), R R ), R x R _R
w

QQQ

iii
09
'_

11111

'8>J_'

1ii
54
 N0,30 - SOYBERNS

.8
Mead, NE
Aug. 8, 19'72
Ref. 29

.6
(1)
0
(--

_t.J
0"_
(1.)
t+_
(1.)
02
.2

0 I 1 I I I 1 III1
.3 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0
WGvelength,_m
k _R ._x _R k R k R k _R
."14

:l i:
""l
.tt
! 1

I I .'-t2
.Lt
iil
1 ._8
.6 1{
1 ¸
.6t

.7; 1

5_
 NO :31 - SOYBEANS

.8
Aug.-Sept. 1976
Ref. 38

(1)
©
(--
0

C)
(t)
'-I.--
(])
/
pr"
•2 --

I 1 _1 I I
0
.3 .S 1.0 1 .S 2.0
Wovelength,/zm
R R R
X IR R

.i
.i
.i :7
.i

i
7q
7q
:068
• 79
,_83 :_8 7_
76
.! I I
:_
.!88

.I
.I
.I
.I
,192
,19
,17
I!ii
7;

56
 N0,32 - SUBI:::IRBEETS

Ref. SO

q.)
©

,vk
0
@

q.)

'k
rY

,,I,,,_
1,0 i .5 2.0
Wavelength,/zm
._.x _R _x _R _X _R .._X R

J .2_
m_
oi :I_

.I
o[ 'x
°| ,_

,_
:X

I
t :D
'[, i_

• _. ._.

1
') X

'_.
': _
! .L 1. _,J

57
 N0.33 - SuG,qlR BEETS

.8
Beltsville, MD
Summer, 1962
Ref. 33

.6
@
0
C

0 .u_
®
w--
@

.2

I]11

•5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Wuvelength,/zm
._.x _x _R X _R ;k R x R

e_r
°

Q_ •t _ ._ _.
m_
izi
°, _ °_ t_

:li °' •_ :L,I

°L

ol

:i:i_ .L
L !.2
_,
' :1 ,Iml

mE ,_
L
L i_ .I
mE -°

58
 NO,3U_ - SUBFIRCFtNELEAF

.8
Weslaco, TX
Summer, 1970
Ref. 1u,

.6
(1)
0

_D

0 .4
(D

(D
¢Y
.2

0 t ,,llll,lJl,_l,,,,I
.3 1.0 1 .S 2.0 2 .S
Wavelength,/zm
R R _x _R _.x _R

I!
I ._(

l} I,

59
 N0.35 - SUBF:IRCI:::INE
LERF

.8_
Ref. I9

.6
@
0
(.-

(1)

Ct2
.2

0 J j I i Illll,lll_llllL_l
.3 .5 1 .O 1 .S 2 .O 2 .S
Wavelength,/_m
x _R ..__x R .._x R
w
...x R

t!
i!,
,Id

,,_ ;n

.11

6O
 N0,36 - SUBI:::IRCRNE

m
.8
Ref. 1g

.6 m

@
0
(-

c_
.2 m

0 l J JJ,JJl,,, II_lllJ
.3 1.0 1 .S 2.0 2.5
Wavelength,,u,m
R _x _R __x
,i,
_ ",J,c

_._ _ .! ,
._;
} "5 ,c
_'i_
",
", !
:I
"_ <
_._ ', ,_f
"_i

._; .,I .I_ • ,, <

._; _ .I. _ .I

._; °' t
._;
_._t ._ _
._;
._;
_'_ ',:i',
•:
# .,.'I
61
 NO,3? - SUNFLOWER

.8
Leningrad. Russia
52 ° sol. elev.
Ref. 23

.6

0
c-
E)

0
q)

(D
or"
.2

. /
I_ I I I I
.5
Wavelength,/zm

_x R _R _x R

°:

m_
o_

ll ili
ii 81

62
 NO,:38 - TOBFICCO

.8
Ref. 26

.6
(1)
0
E -1
C) .u_
(1)

(].)
rY
.2

0 I IlillJlliJ_l
•3 .S 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Wavelength,/4m
R R X R __x R _X _R
.?L "i

!1g_

,8!

,i! i
!
].
ii
I
!i
63
 NO. 3g - TOIvlF:ITOFS

.8
Ref. u_6

.6
@
0
c-"
C_

0 .u_
@

.2

R x R x x _ x R

.i
.i
.i
,i
.i
i :_ll
.i

• ''ill,i!Ii
"i
:l
I
"1
"1

mI

m!
 NO.L_O - TOMATOES

.8
Beltsville MD
Summer, 1962
Ref. 33

.6
P
@ !
©
(- i

(D
/
(1)

.2

I I iI, I IIII I
.5 I .0 I .5 2.0 2.5

Wuvelength,/zm
R R _x _R _x _R _x _R

if'
rl:;:

_6
•

• lq

•
;0

ii:[
.,-_

"_ _
i
,°_
,._
::15

65
 NO. _ 1 - NflTERMELON LEflF

.8
Weslaco, TX
Summer, t970
Ref. 1L_

.6 m

(L)
0
(.-
©

© .u, I

(:L)
I

N.-..-
(]_)
rY
.2

0 i Ii I ljl_.... I_l I_lll I llJl I

.3 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
WGvelength,/zm
_x R X R R ), R i
R
.1 ,7 L .I0
.7_
.71

:_
• 77
i
1
tt8
It_
,ii
1
1.6
 NO.U_2 - NHEAT

.8
Ref. 5O

.6
q)
0
(-

0
q)

(D
rY
.2

0 I, I I I I I I
.5 1.0 I .5 2.0 2.5
WGvelength,/zm
R R ), R R _x R

i!! Ii i
.Tt

.I
.]
.I
i
iI

! i t i
11

67
 NO. LJ::3- SEEBL I NG 14HEAT

.8
Williston, ND
Moy 1976
Ref. 3

.6
(1.)
q)
C

(9 .1_ --
(1)
,.+_
(1)
N"
•2 --

f
0_4 I I I Jl],,t,lf,,,lli,
.3 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wavelength,/z,m
R X _R X X R X R
_X

iIi ._
t"
iI!i
iIll
.;

.L

ilil
oL
i-
°_
°_
°_

z:t

6B
 NO.U_u__ YOUNG NHEAT

.8
Moy 28, 1973
Ref. i 1

.6 w

(I)
0
c-
O
0 .u_
(I)

(I)
N/
f
-2

•3
' ""
f,,

.S
l 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
WGvel en g f.h,,u,m
X _R _ R _x R E
X R X R

"!I
iil! lli
lil
i"

69
 NO.u_s - BOOTED NHEAT

.8--
Imperial Valley, CA
May 1977
Atmospheric corrected aircraft data.
Ref. 6
•6 --

@
0
c-
©

(1)

(D
cY

r4/-"m_! , I I
0
.3 .5 1.0 1.2

Wavelength,p,m

X R X _R _X _R % R X R

.r_ _-_ -

i ill lii i Ii •

illi ilili il
70
 NO.LIB - MRTURE IAHERT

.8
Aug. 8, 19'73
Ref. 1 1

1.0 I .5 2.0 2.5

Wavelength,,um
_x _R ...x _R _.x _R _x _R
:"kAxBB )
I
I
e'

• m !

• • i

oll •
"k_h'
"k_;I
iI •
•_XY
,L
.L .I
"kYA :'t i

._,_
°I
"i
.1
"i
e,

.I
.I e,

e_

i,

il
t

,,( (

?1
 NO,q:? - MATURE HHEAT

,8
Williston, ND
Aug. 1976
Ref. 3

.6
@
0
(-

@
N/
.2

•S I .0 i .5 2.0 2 .S

Wavelength,/zm
R }, R
R X R }, _R
3 17

1.6
1.7
t.7
I
"1 , 1.3
"1 , 13
33 , 8

f:

:I
i
-,J
• d
iI
72
 NO,L_8 - klHEAT STUBBLE

.8
Denver, CO
Ref. u,o

.6
(1)
0

(3

0 .Li
(D

fY
.2

.S 1.0 1.2
Wavelength,p,m

X R R
m R X £ _x _R
17
,5:
17
I
• !
_8

I ,7
•71
_iI_.
• t7 . i:
.18

i
.71

:_ I_
iIii 1

73
 NO,U_g _ TREMBLING RSPEN

.8
Ottawa, Canada
Aug. 1973
Ref. S 1

.6

0
c-

O
(D

rY
.2

I i I
.S 1.0 1.2

Wavelength,/zm

R R X R X R
X _R m

,u,8 I.
I .I;
" I
.I;
"i
"!i
•i;I

.I
.I
Ii, I

74
 NO, SO - BIRCH LEAVES

.8
Kjeller, Norway
//'-"_/m Sept. 1980
8 leaves stacked.

.6
(D
0
(-
(D

N--
(1)
Pr"
.2

0 IIllllll,,,,I,,,,I
1.0 1.5 2.0 2 .S
Wavelength,/zm
R .._x R ;k R R X R

i!I
• I

• i

ii :i
!
.6;
i'
.6 u,

.711 :_£_

75
 NO.S1 - REDBLUSH CITRUS

.8
Weslaco, TX
Sept. l_?U_
Ref. t?

.6
q)
0
(-

0
q.)
i..t__
(1..)
13:::
.2

0 1 1 ! I I 1 I J I I I

.3 .5 I .0 I .5
Wavelength,,u.m
_R _x _R .._x _x R ;k R

.j

!lii
!

._;
._;
._;
._;
._IL2 gs.
.u,o,
I
_fe
"l_&¥
'_,!_
°_
°,.q

"_,_

"_ ._,
"t,

1'6
 NO,S2 - AMERICAN ELM LEAF

.8
Ref. 2u_

.6
(L)
0
(-
©

0
(i.)
W--
(1.)
rr
.2

0 i I I ,ll,,llj,,,ll,j,I
.3 .S 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Wavelen g f.h,,u,m

77
 N0.53 - BALSAM FIR

.8--
dackman, ME
Summer, 1363
Ref. 5?

0
C

(D

0
I
•5 I .0 t.2
.3
Wavelen gth, _m

R R R

i.i ,! il
"/8
 NO,5_ - SILVER MflPLE LEflF

.8
Ref. 2_

.6
(1)
C)
c-
O

0 .u,
(I.)
w.--

rY
.2

0 I i i 'll''JJl,llJl,,,ll
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2 .S
WGvelength,_m
R _R R R X
I
R

il
i!l
79
 I10.55 - SUGAR HI::::tPLELEAF

.8 Ann Arbor, MI
1969
Ref. 52

.6 m

0
c
©

0 .u_
q..)
'q---
(1)
n."
.2

0 I IL I I
.3 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
WGvelength,/_m
R ?, R
x R __ _R __x _R _x

80
 NO.S6 - BURR OAK LEAF

.8
Urbana, IL
June 18, 1962
Ref. 36

.6
®
0
c-
©
-4J
0
q)
N--

rY
.2

0
.3 •5 1.0 1.2
Wovelength,/zm

X R X R X R X R X R

!!i "If il'

1:1:
1.1

i ::lii 1:87
i:I
1

81
 NO.S? - LIVE OAK

.8
Weslaco, TX
1976
Ref. 39

.6
q.)
0
c"

0 .I 4 _
(1.)
,,+_

rY

0 l lljllll,_, ljl,,!
.3 .5 I .0 I .5 2.0 2.5
Wovelength,_m
__x _R _x _R ;k R ;k R

°; .it
II
Ill ,o
,_. "_ 5 ol 'X

_ 'X
o;
"l :_ .I
"i .i
°1 • i _,Q
el ;j,l_

.I ol :Q
• i 'X
.I
!
.i o
:__ :cI
1 "_. S
• i ):t
"i ' ol '^ _
°1

:i
.I
iil • i ;c.

• 1 hX

.I
.I .I Bt
ol ;.7,
.! '-_ "I_ _i "
i
.__ :t_ :8_ "' '_

82
 NO.S8 - ORRNBE LEI:::IF

.8
Ref. 56

.6
(1.)
0
c-
(3
0 .L]:
(1)
"--I--
@

.2

0 1.1 I ,,l,,lll,,,,ll,,, I
.S 1.0 1 .S 2.0 2.S
Wavelength,/_m
;k R R X R X R X R

:]!
:_',
.3t

!I Ii
"il
Ii iSt

83
 N0.59 - PEACH LEAF

.8
Ref. 56

0
c-
[3

0 .U c

rY
.2

0 I Ii ,I,,,,I,,I,l
.3 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wavelength,/zm
R __x R ?, R _x Z ?, R
._72
-_

'Ii • 7
•
•
I
I
@
,',y_

.I
.I
.I
.I
.!i I! Q_

_X

MM

Rtl 2 .u,l

84
 NO o60 - DERD PONDEROSA PINE NEEDLES

.8
Black Hills, SD
Aug. 196 u,
Ref. 22

.6
q)
0

©
-+J
0
(D
N--
<1.)
rY-
.2

I I I I

Wavelength,/zm

R _ R R _ R R
.3! .61
• i

.3t
.3! .177
.17

:_ .0

lib fill!!
il i!
,I
_
:8? .18
.13

85
 NO,61 - PONDEROSR PINE NEEBLES

.8
SD

.6
(D
0
c-
O

© w

(D
%--

pr"
.2 w

0 I I 1 I I , I
.3 .5 1.0 1.2
Wavelength,/zm

R R 7, R X R ?, R
.6u,6
•6 g
• _
:_ .8_ :_
•"176
?9

.s_
.159
.15
.16_
°' il !
iil "
• 8tt

.13
:_ .121
.15
:_ i_0 !li ::ll_.il 1 1

i; !il'iiill rll,
•1_9
:_
1

86
 N0,62 - PONDEROSR PINE NEEDLES

.8
Angeles National Forest, CA
June 1968
Ref. 55

(D
0
(-
E3
-+J
0
©
N--
(1)
pr_

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Wavelength,#m
x

:_£
.3[
.31

.4
.Lt
.41
.41
.SI
.S',
.St
.g
.5
.61
.61

.7

87
 NO,B3 - RED PINE NEEDLES

.8
Urbana, IL
June 18, 1962
Ref. 36

.6
q.)
0
(-
0

0
(1)
N--
(1)
Pr"
.2

0 I i I
.3 .S 1.0 1.2

Wavelength,/zm

R R
R _ R _
3_

,If !!

88
 NO,6U_ - LdHITE PINE

.8
Ottawa, Canada
Aug. 1923
Ref. 51

.6 n

(1)
0
(-
E]

0
(D

@
FY"
.P m

0 I
.8 .S 1.0
Wavelength,/zm

R X R X R R X R

li
.i
.i

i!I
.i : i
.i
.i
.i
:i L:PJ
.i L.01
.i L.0'.
.i L.II
L.1
"i L.1',
"1 L.1:
L.I'

L:
l _:

89
 N0,65 - RED SPRUCE

.8
Jackman, ME
Summer, 1969
Ref. 5?

.6

0
c-
(D
-{J
0
(D
N--
(D
rY
.2

0 I I I I I
.3 1.0 1.2
Wavelength,/zm

X R X R R X R

!ii • i

:I l .11

111
iIl iI ii
•

1:87
I
 N0o66 - SYCtqlIORE LEAF

.8
Moisture 30tX oven dry weight.
Ref. u_9

.6
(D
©
(-
_3

0 .4
q)

q)
¢Y
.2

0 iI 1 J I ,I,l,lllI,Lll I I I I
.3 .5 I .0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Wavelength,/zm
X R X R R R _R
:_s-_ _,2,

i 5 t!

i i!I iil !l
91
 NO.6? - OEHYDRFITEB SYCAMORE LEAF

.8
Moisture 16% oven dry weight.
Ref. u_9

.6
(13
(D
c-
E)
-+J
(D .E
(1)
N---
(1)
rY
.2

2w
0 ! Ii Illll,,,llJllll'''l
•3 .S 1.0 1 .S 2.0 2 .S
Wavelength,_m
_R _X R _x _R _X _R R

.30

!i
.'71 : L

ililll
g|.

i'i l
g2
 N0.68 - TULIP TREE LEAF

.8_
Ref. 2_

.6
(I)
0
(--
(3

0 .LI
(i)

(i)
¢y-
.2

0 J lJ 1 I JlJ,l,llj,
JX
I1,,,11
.3 .S 1.0 i .S 2.0 2,5
Wavelength,/zm
_R X R X R )x R R
.31

,I
.I
.I
,I
.!
• J

_---_%2_. g3
 NO, 69 - CENI ZO

.8_
Weslaco, TX
19?6
Ref. 39

(])
0
c-

O u,
@
%,-_
@
rY

0 i ,IJllli,,, _1t1,,1
.3 .S t .0 I .5 2.0 2.5
WGvelength,#m
X R X R X X _R __X R

li!
,I

"I
"I o

"I
!
"I
"I
°;
"i
1(

li!i'
.I
"i
.I
"i
,I

°]
l

:l
18_ :

94
 NO,TO - flVERRBE DESERT LERVES

.8
Western Great Basin, NV
Sept. 19u,9
Ref. u_

.6
@
0
c-
©

© .q
@

@
Pr"
.2

i t I J l i 1 I
.5 1.0 1.2
Wavelength,/zm

R R ), _R _.X _R _X R

I1
.!
:1
i iili
:_oo
•6t j:ll l
95
 NO,71 - GRASS

,8
Denver, CO
Ref. u_o

.G
(D
0
(-
(3
-4---/
0 ,q
(L)

G)
Pr"
.2

l , I i I I
,
•3 .5 I .0 i .2

Wavelength,/_m

R R _x ! Y R R

:_t_
.71
.7 ! ill!
ili!il,
 NO.q2 - GRI::ISS

Ref. u,u_

,lllllllllJ
1.0 1.5 2.0 2 .S
Wavelength,/zm
), R X _R _..x _R _x _R _X _R

m_

°_
k_
,_;_

•-_
" ' I[
illl :1,
IQ
mlj ,_
:i
"_' _ m_

m_

l!
mb

°;_ _,i "

"_ ill
• I

•".,
_ :8_'_ ,"1

97
 NO.V3 - KENTUCKY BLUE BRASS

Ref. 50

1.0 1.5 2.0

Wavelength,/_m
_R _x _R _x _R _X R
_x _R X

lli
°1
°1
!_ !:I i
@@
 NO.7U,: - RED FESCUE GRI::::tSS

.8
Ref. 50

.6
(D
0

%
°i
[if
2

0 I I I 1

.3 •5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Wovelength,/im
X R R R R X R

l
ii

i
99
 N0,75 - BLUE GRAI'IA BRASS

.8
Fort Collins, CO
June 1972
Ref. u_8

.6 i

@
0
C

0 .u_ R

@
Cr"
.2 m
S _ __ _

I_1 I I
0 I i I
.3 .5 1.0 I .2
Wavelength,/zm

X R ._x _R X _R _x _R X R

• !_
t
P.

:_ °_
• i

-I

i!liI ii atll_

:_
:2_
"3;

: iS;;J "_
°OU
.1

:_
,i lii!
IIX)
 NO,?6 - PERENNIFIL RYE GRASS

.8
Ref. 50

.6
@
0
(--
D

C.)
(13
4--
(]3
cY

3_ R R _x _R X _R _.x
.) I .t
.t
.t .t
I. .t
.L I
t ,
P .$
.C
r
.I. I .I
:i
"r,

e¢
.I4
.t
"|
ol

:i .C
.C
:i
I °I
"i
m_ :i .C
°I
°1
,I b
°,j
.I .b

.I
.I
.I
.!
:i
2" °I,

mL.

101
 NO,?? - DRY LICHEN SRMPLE

.8
Washington, DC
Growing on sandstone
Ref. 13

.6
(D
0
c-
_J

0
(D /I

(D
pr"
.2

/-
0 I 1 I I 1 1
.3 .5 1.O
Wavelength,/zm

R _x R R R
8 .312
• 12 1"i

lliiii.ll;!i
!

li
65
7_
S7

12
7_
l !i,
102
 NO, ?8 - L ]:CHEN P1RT

.8
Saskatchewan, Canada
Spruce Woodland
Ref. 12

.6
(1)
0
c-
O

(D .q
(D
N--
(D
rY
.2

I I
•3 .5 1.0 1 .S 2.0
Wavelength,p,m
X R ;k R X R ;k R X R

• i :66 _._
ill ijiIii!
'';I
iil :, ,

103
 N0,"79 - IdFINZFIN
I TPI

.8 Ref. LiLi

.6

0
c-
O

rY-
.2

lllll'llli
I .0 I .5
Wavelength,/_m
R ;k R
R R x .__x

";w

°_,
e 1
")
")
"_
) "_.
"_.
"_.

.L
,L
,I.
I.
{

"I
"I
oi
.i .151.i
 NO, 80 - MESOUl TE

.8_
Weslaco, TX
1976
Ref. 39

@
0
(-
E)
o.L_
(1)

(D
D2
o_ _

0
.3 •5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Wavelength,ezra
_x _R _x _R _X _R _x _R
i. °1
L. ol .I
Lo' e

k o, .I
i°
.i
ol 71
u I
wl =hi
ed
• 4
i
el
i
ii °l ?t
q "I
ii ml
q i
ii
i
ii •I _
ii i, el £_
i
el i,

";
e,
q
i,
2_

i
:i
.I

ii °1
ol
ol

lOg
 NO.81 - HONEY F1ESOUITE

.8
Texes
Ref. 16

.6 /

q)
0
c-
O

0
(b

(D
Pr"
.2

0 I
.3

_, R ), R X R X R R
• 97

l ,Ii i
ili!
 NO. 88 - PRI CKLY PERR

.8 m
Ref 19

(D
0
(-.

0 .L_
(1)
N.--
(D
121

0 I
.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Wavelength,#m
;,, R _.x _R _x _R _x _x _R
i,5

,I
°I , i_ i[
.I
.I ,°_
i

°;

:t I
,X

illi
ii,

107
 N0,83 - DRY SRGE

.8 Ref. LLu_

.6
¢D
¢D
c-

L) .u_
(1.)
',..I--
(1)

.2

0 _._Lllll Illll,lllJLl
.3 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wovelength,p,m
R x _R R
X R ;k R X m

.I)6 t

_.l_
I • I:

ill ' t
l:i
1 lli

ii!!
i!iii:: i!li :_

108
NO,8u_ - F::IVERRGESUBI::tLPINE SLOPE LEF:::tVES

.8
Western Great Basin, NV
Sept. 1:9u_9
Ref. u_

.6
(D
0
(-
©
4-J
0
q)

(D
rY
.2

1 I I I
.5
Wavelength,/zm

X X R X _R X R
.u,

.7L
.7_
i)))
!i
,7(
1171

10g
 NO. 85 - S ]_LVERLEt::IF SUNFLOHER

.8
Weslaco, TX
t976
Ref. 39

.6
(D
0
c-
O

(1)
c_
.2

"k
0 l li I I iI,,_lll,,i III1,1
.3 .5 I .0 t .5 2.0 2 .S
Wavelength,#m
z _x Z R X R
¢

_'_
• [ I " _

_._
_t "_
"_

il
. , g[

,.,_

•_] ,_

'-"'"' i
• o_, t
-'t
*|

110
 NO, 86 - BURNED FOREST SURFIICE

.8--
Saskatchewan, Canada
Ref. 12

.6
(D
0
c-
©
0 ,u_

@
rY
.p

0 I I I I 1 I I ,llJ,II
.3 •5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Wav e ength,/sin
X R % R X R _x R X R

_7

!
t !1

ill
i
1 I;
l it
1 I{
1 fl

•
Iil
i 2
iiii
2

III
 N0,87 - ARKOSE

.8
Ref. 21

.6
G)
0
(-
©

©
(D
f
(D
pr"
.2

0 I t I I I 1 I
•5 I .0
Wave ength,/xm

R R R X R _X R
X
,i_,1 i i-i

"x_x
• X_t-r

.'7 •XXA
";x
"XXY
J

•XX,'_
•p,_
-( b-,,I.._

".xx×
"X,&I_ I
ill'
•x6x
t
I
"XX,'_
2 •
"_ct
:_,_

112
 N0,88 - BRSRLT SRMPLE

.8
Oregon
Crushed, fine powder.
Ref. u_I

.6
g_)
0
(--

0-_
(D

(D
O2
.2

I 1 I ,l,l,ll,lltl I I I
I .0 I .5 2.0
Wavelength,/sm
k R k R k R k R X

i6i
ii
ilii
i if!
I I'
:!

il!i
115
 N0,89 - RED C INOER BRSRLT SRMPLE

.8
Ref. 1

.6
(1)
0

CP

0
CD

(1)
El/
.2

0
•3 .S 1.0 1 .S 2.0 2.5
Wavelength,/_m
R x _R _x R R

• 18 • .62

iill!
.$6

114
 NO,g0 - GRAY BRSglLT SRHPLE

.8
Ref. 1

.6
(1)
0
(-
0
0 .LJ:
(1)
,,+_
(1)
fy
.2

,l,,,ll,,j,l,,,,l,,,
•S 1.0 1 .S 2.0
Wavelen gth,/zm
D
x _R _x _R .__X _R .__X _R .__x £

!!
• i

!i
115
 NO. 91 - BRECCI Iq

.8
Bonanza Volcanic Center, CO
Lahar Breccia
Ref. 32

.6
(1)
O
(--
(D
-4J

(1)
N---
(1)
rY
.2

I I 1 I
•5 1.0 1.5 2.5
Wavelength,/zm
m
X _R _x _R _x _R _x _R __x R
w .?u,

illiiii!l t°,_t

:_8
il!I
!! • ilia, ' "c I

116
 N0092 - ORY REO CLf::tY Sf::tlKPLE

.8
Indiana
t967
5% water.
Ref. 17

(9
c-
<3

0
(D

(D
rY

0 i IIi,,l,l,'l''''IL I I

.3 •5 I .O I .5 2.0
Wavelength,/4m
R R
X R x _R _x _R _x
.i
.i ._ :_8

i
°_

.ti "52 i
u,
,u,
.!
0t
.i

117
 N0093 - BIET REB CLAY SFtMPLE

.8--
Indiana
1967
2g_ water.
Ref. u,?

q_
0

£)
o,L_--
(1.)

O2

0
•3 .S 1.0 i ,5 2.0 2',5
Wavelen gth,/4m
_x _a x _R _R _x R ), R

i -i

wl

ii

l!
"ilii!ll
55

,I
:I_8
,I

"i
BI

ml

ml

118
 NO. 9L_ - QUI4RTZ D IOR ITE

.8
San Oobriel, Inyo and Argus Mrs., CA
Ref. 5

.6

C
C_
O.u_
q)
t+_. f
c_
.2

0 ,I,Ij,l,,J,llJ,jl,,,,I
.3 •5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Wavelength,Am
X _R X _R __X __x R

.t

Jl,
• C

FI il
1 .3U_l .366

llg
 N0,,95 - GRf:INI TE

.8 Ref. 5u_

.6

0
c-

© .LI:
(1)

(1)
rY
.2

•5 ! .0 I .5
Wavelengt:h,_m

X R :X _.R _x R __x R _a
8

::i- oi

ILt
k_
b_

E_

i!i I :li! C_

r_

120
 N0.96 - GRtqNITE

.8_
Sen Gabriel Mrs., CA
Ref. 5

q)
(D
(-
(D

(J ,I-Iz

w,._
E)
rY /
0 J I I ,llJ,ll,Jj
.3 1.0 1.5
Wovelength,/lm
R _x _R ._x _R _X _R

oi

',X

"I _A

"i YM
"i
"1
.!
,L
,L ¢1

,L X

.573

1_1
 NO. 97 - B ]_OT]_TE GRI:::tN
I TE SRMPLE

Crushed, fine p

•8[- _,o_o,,Ion_
____ Ref. U_l

•6 -_
&)
0
(-
E_

N--
(]3
pr"
.2'--

/
oLi I i i i i I i i I II I I I I I I I I I I

•3 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Wavelength,/_m
_R _.x R _X __ __x R __x R

"I , -_£
°)

"I
ot
"I i
-,L,RR
ot
.L
"i • -.z.N_
.t
"i • &N - ._
oL
XX) _
I
"i
•' ?_I ._"II I0

"| :t
. ili
!!!
6_.{:]

" i:l!
ot
ot
o[
o[ "_ .7_8

ili
!I
r
• i if_

_, rN :_¢ ._

122
 N0,98 - 6;RRVEL

.8
Denver, CO
Ref. 4:0

.6
(1)
0
(--

0 "_
(1)

rY
.2

0 I I 1 1 !
.3 2.5

_R X _R _x _R
• I

ill

123
 N0.99 - GLACIOFLUVIAL SAND AND GRAVEL

.8
Onondaga County, NY
Ref. u,5

.6
(D
0
E

0
q3
,,e-

rY
.2

I/[I-, ! , , I
•5 1.0
Wavelength,Am

_R X _R ), _R _x R ._x R

Ii
,0 m

i 'i!!
.i:_ ,i! -,_

-#

::!L
124
 NO, 1O0 - L I fllESTONE

.8
Ref. 21

.6
(1)
(3
c7_
0

(O .u, m

(D
".-I--
(1)
r/-"
.2

0 , I,,jll,J,,l,,,,I IIII
.3 •S 1.0 1.5 2.0
WGvelength,/zm
x _R X _R __X _R X R £

'i
°1

°1

I
°1

"'
°1
"1 Ii
I

"'
:l
ol
l ll mt

125
 NO. 101 - L I NESTONE SFIIVlPLE

.8
Indiana
t 967
Weathered Harrodsburg Formation.
Ref. u,q
.6
(1.)
C)
(-
C)
-tJ
(D .E
(D
N--
(D
FY
.2

0
.5 I .0 t .5 2.0 2.5
Wavelength,/zm
_R _R

ii
d
i

it i!il
wl
i
,i

el

o;
o;

i ill
w_

l,

m_

i ill!iiiili
126 .
 NO. 102 - HONZONI TE

.8
Panamint Mrs., CA
Ref. 5

.6
(D
©
(-
©

©
(Z)

.2

0 I I 1 I
.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Wavelength,Azm
), R ), x A x _R

}
1
iii o, .?

I
l
I
iii
li !
oi

}
ili
ol
.I
ol
ol
.!
I

127
 NO, 103 - OURRTZ MONZONITE

.8
San Gabriel, Argus, Panamint and Inyo Mrs., CA
Ref. 5

.6
q.)
0
c-
O
0 .u_
(D
i

ff
ff
q) f

rY
.2

I I I ,l,lljltl,,I I I I
I .0 I .S 2.0
Wavelength,/zm
_R _R R i
R
.?

l' ,.,,il!i
:I

:1'

!i
-_!

ii'
i
_l .333
128
 NO. 10_ - OBS I 0 [ AN SflHPLE

.8
Ref. 1

o._
(D

(D

.2

0 f l I l f I I f I f f I f ( ( f I f f ! f I

.3 •5 I .0 1,5 2.0 2.5

Wavelength,/_m
k _R _x _R _x _R _x

.,e_! :_,_ _.,,

•I 5 •_ ,_'
,Oi
-i1
• oi J
;';
t "_
"._J
e d I[
•o_ _: t
,g.!
• j, - ,,.,,

" v s , • ,, _.: _;

.i "D_ t "_
•1 (
t,J
"i .,,, t:i •1 | ",4A_ ;,;'1
eI[]

°il
.ll ,L e_
"_ _':
"_ .L

ae_,

.t )6 .o: o_
q
• Oi

•_: ._ :_3B .,
;i (
"_: I "_
"_;
eL1 _ :i_ :_I !.1I ._1

;=9
 NO. lOS - UNFILTERED ROCKS

.8
Goldfield, NV
Sulfide orebody.
Ref. 42

.6
(1.)
0

C_
0
(1.)
N-.-
(13 r
rY
.2

0 1 I t 1 Illlllllll,l,,
.3 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wdvelength,/zm
...x R ._x _R k R k R

ill
.L
_,,4_
"1
"f
"5

°;
o;
o,
lll!lli
_,,4_ :i
_,,4_ °1

ii
o|
oi
o_ti ol
|
"I
"I
"I
"I

130
 NO. 106 - ALTERED ROCKS

.8
Goldfield, NV
Pyrite enriched sulfide orebody.
Ref. [t2

.6
(1)
(D
c-
(D

0 .I-l:
(1)

(1)
rY
.2

0 1
I
I I I I IllJltllllli 1 1 I
.3 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wavelength,izm
x R R _R _X _R R

.3[

:!dt
:i_
l!
I 6_
"1.
°1 :,!is

j!i
:L
[

:I
.38
I:"ii
i. :iil
.30
1
t
:8i 1
:_I
:?_ ill
131
 NO. 107 RHYOLITE SI:qlIPLE
f

.8

/ Crushed, fine powder.

.6
(1)
0
(-

0
(1)

(1)
rY-
.2

0 I I ] I111 1
.3 1 .O 1 .S 2.0 2.5

W@velength,/zm
k R _R _x _R ), R ), R

:_¢_

'i!I
!i :_
!
132
 NO, 108 - BEI:ICtt SI:::iNDSI:::tlIPLE

.8--
Atlantic City, NJ
Ref. 25

.6
(D
0
c-
E_
O.tt _
(1)

q.)

°2 --

13 i I I I II ,,,I,Iijl I I
.3 I .0 i .5 2.0
WGvelen g i:h,,u.,m
), R ),, R _x R _x _R R
e,

in,
,! i
o,o

0,
°_.
m, r_
i, e, ._
°1
w,
°1
o; wl
.!
Im
.I
°! I
oq
.L I
e_ irl e_
.I I

.L :z • × ml
I
°L °L • tl i
"I
°L "I
oL .L i

.[ .t "1
ul
( B_,#I
.I
.( °_ °!
e_

.r A
°L
°r "t, i .!

133
 N0.109 - CARBONATE BEt::::tCHSt::::tNEI
SI::::IYIPLE

.8
15% water.
Ref. lO

.6
(1)
0
(--
(3
0
(1)

rY
.2

0 ,1111 l._Lllllll ,l 1 I I
.3 •5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wavelength,/_m
.__x R _x R _x R _x m
R _x R

.271

134
 NO. 110 - CIUI::IRTZBEI:::ICHSRND StRMPLE

.8 i
Gulf of Mexico
25% water, non-iron stained.
Ref. 10

.6

/-

_._
(D

%
C12
.2 _

o Jl,lltllJilJll ,llll,,I
•3 ,S 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Wavelength,ezra
._x R _.x _R ._x R _.x R
.?t [
)

I,
P
!
4'
I

.I
*i .I
i,I
.I
.I
i .LB .1 ,(

J,,.
t:i
4

i 1.1

.I
t,w -t
if,

135
 NO.ill - QURRTZ BERCH SRNB SF_HPLE

.8
Lake Michigan Coastline
30% water, iron stained.
Ref. 10

.6
q)
0
q-

0 .u,
q.)

q.)
ry
.2

•5 t .0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Wovelength,/zm
R x R_ A R R
R ),

II

£4,9

!
136
 NO. 1 l P - DRY SRND

.8
Monument Valley, UT
Ref. 8

I I I I I i I
1.0 1.2
Wovelength,/zm

X R X R X R _x R R
._0
LLL

,i!+l i
P,.t

_X

!
.R

:_
,X

ii
+U

"_
:X
"_N
"_
:_8_

137
 NO, 113 - GYPSUM St:::INDSIqlIPLE

White Sands National Monument, NM

Ref. 25

0
(-

0
q3
N--

rY

I .0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Wavelength,/zm

R _R x R R _x R

•
X

II
.l
L
.L
.L
L
.L
,[
°E
,!
,1

I
r

t
'ili
, E

.L gr

.L .L

:!
"1

l
X
.!
,,! .1
.I .t
I .1
:I .In
.I
.I
I
.I
1

ill
"1
,l[I .I
°1 I "1
'°1_ .I "1
I
• X
I
i.
S°I
5.1

138
 NO. 11 u_ - S I L I CF:I SF::INDSI:::IlIPLE

.8
Ref. 25

.6

0
E
©
0

rY
.2

0 I I I lll,J,l,,,jI I I I
I .0 i .5 2.0
WGvelength,/_m
_R R __x R _R
.!

"i .I
.(
.) °1
.I
.I
.(
w
.!
m m

.! "If e

mI

j,I e

• e

i m e

.! m,

BI
i
• e

i!
.I m e

.l m r

.I )
B$

.I m_

-I B
Q_

e_
m ,t} I
m_ m
• j

139
 NO, 11S - SHALE

.8 Ref. 21

.6
(1)
0
c-
O

0 .u_
(1.)

/
/
cr"
.2

I I I I I i I
.0 I .2
Wavelength,/Lm

X R R ), R
), R X R m

.17 • 6 o

!
: 8
.1"/

._3

,II
1tll
 NO. 116 - DRY SILT SFtI'IPLE

.8
Indiana
1967
5% water.

.6
(D
0
c-
O

0
(1)

(D
fY
.2

0
•5 ! .0 1 .S 2.0 2.5
Wavelength,#m
_R _R _x R _R _X R
I

i!i
.i

I .t
°t
ot .I
.I
.I

ii
.i
.I
.I
I
,q .I
.I .I
.I .i
.I 1 .i
.I
.!
[7
o

! .I
.i
.I

141
 NO. t I? - NET SILT SI:::tlVlPLE

.8 Indiana
1967
20% water.
Ref. q7
.6
q_
C)
c-
[D

££
.2

0 i lllilli,lilIIlil111' I
.5 t .0 i .S 2.0 2.5
.3
Wovelength,/zm
R _ R X R
x _R X _R __X
"& i: _ -
• [ ,

:ii I:'
:! i :

I!i
!llo
I il ll il
142
 NO, 118 - DRY SILT

.8
Hot Springs, AR
Pedolfer-type silt.
Ref. 8

.6
q)
0
c-
[D
/
0

rY
.2

o I I j I i , I 1
•3 .S 1.0 1.2
Wavelength,_m

R R X R

:l}

:I
.I
ol
.I
B,

143
 NO.ll9 - DRY LF:]CUSTRINE SILT fiND CLAY

.8
Onondaga County, NY
Ref. u,5

.6
(P
C)
c
C)

C)
Q.)
N--
(L)
cr"
.2

I , I
.S 1.0 1.2

Wavelength,/zm

X R _x R X R X R
,I.

ili
,I.
"l 2t

-I'!
i lili
11
i:i
,1
,1
•1
.I t[ 1'1
ol
E7 ,I

144
 NO. 120 - S0I L SIqMPLE

.8
Whitley County, IN
June 1973
Mar tinsville soil.
Ref. u_3
.6
(D
(D
(-
(D
-.I-.'
O .u,
(1.)

(D
[t::i
.2

0 J l,,,jllllll_,,jllll I
.3 •5 I .0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Wovelength,#m
R ._X R _x 3 _x 3

°I
"i I
illi,
145
 NO. 12t - SOI L SQMPLE

.8
Whitley County, IN
June 1:973
Morley soil.
Ref. u_3
.6
(1)
0
c-
O

0
q_
_+--
q_
rY
.2

! L I I 1_1 I I I I I ! I I I I
0 ! I
1.0 I .5 2.0
Wavelength,#m
k _R x R _R ), R _x R
t"

i
l !
t"

ii
i iii! i ¢

146
 NO. 122 - SOIL SI:::iNPLE

.8
Pawnee Grassland, CO
Ref. 25

.6
(I)
0

0 .u, m

(I.)
%,.__
(1)
rY
.2 m

0 i IIllllllJJlJlljl I I I
.3 •5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wavelength,/_m
R ;k R ;k R

t:_

i
I

147
 NO. 123 - B I SKEB BI:::IRESOIL

Weslaco, TX
Oct. t 3"/5
Ref. 18

¢)
O
c-

O
¢)
N--
C)
¢Y

I
, ! I I
.5

_R _R _X _R _R
c
•I )
.li B_

l!!
,j
.j
° d I[ ,j
.j
,j

:i °_

"_" Z
<

K
,I "_.
.I!
.I "i
<
o,
K °:; c
e, 'i
i,

l,
! °_
a_ :i!
ol
mi

51 .'" o,,

148
 NO, 12u_ - DRY PEBOCI:::IL-TYPE SOIL

.8
Phillipsburg, MO
Ref. 8

.6 f

(D
0
(-
(D
-+J
(D
(D
N--
(1.)
rY
.2

0 , 1 i , , I ! , I
•3 .5 1.0 1.2
Wavelength,/zm

x _R R R

i
i
149
 NO, 125 - DRY CHERNOZEM-TYPE SOIL

.8 Lincoln, NE
Ref. 8

.6
(D
0
c'-

C)

"4--"
q.)
rY
.2

0 _ I I I I
•3 .5 1
Wovelen gth,/.zm

R _ R X R
X R X _R i I i

168 1. 2

i'!l' .i
.I
•1176
•_179
183
:]_
"!i "_
"Ii 'i'i
i
.78
i:!_
:_
:_ i_ 1:8,
0

150
 NO, 126 - DRY LRTER I TE-TYPE SOIL

.8
Charlottesville, VA
Ref. 8

.6
(1)
0

(:3

0
(1)

@
rr"
.2

0 I I I 1 I I I i I
.3 •5 1 •0 1.2
Wavelength,/zm

R ?, R R R

:_?
.3_
.:
.:
.:
.;
'illi i71 !!
i"
ili"il
"1

2
6,

,6_
i'I!l
•ili
:?_
1

151
 NO.12? - DRY CLI::::IYSOIL SAMPLE

.8
2-6% moisture content
Ref. 2 u,

.6
(b
0
¢-

0
(1)
',-I.--
d.)
rY
.2

0 IL,,ll,llll,lllll,,,I
I .0 i .S 2.0 2 .S
Wavelength,/zm
X R X R
m
X ;k R X R

"°I
:?

"i_

.I
.I
.I
.I
.!
11
'ill i
I

152
 NO. 128- 14ET CLAY SOIL SAMPLE

.8
35-u_0% moisture content
Ref. 24

.6
q)
0
(--
(D

0 .4
(1)
N---
@
£Y
.2

0 I I
.3 •5 1.0 I .5 2.0 2.5
Wovelength,/zm
% R % I
R R R _ R

I,'
i

IIi!
• il!i
153
 NO. 129 - DRY LRKE SOIL SI::II"IPLE

.8
Rosamond Dry Lake, CA
Ref. 25

.6
(L)
0
(-
(3
© .LJ:
(D
"-I---
(].)
¢'r"
.2

0 llllllll,,,l'll'l''''l
•3 .5 1.0 1 .S 2.0 2.5
Wavelength,/zm
_x R X R X _R X R X _R

:I_ ::
•
4 t
o_ _v

,_;
"i • _;,_= e I (

.t_
"_. r_
:'_ i

°_ _
i
"_. r_
"_-t_
e_ k_
°1 <

_ K

:I
"I
:! °_. 5,3
"!i

154
 NO. t 30 - CHI LEI:::INNI TRI::::tTESOI L SI::IlSPLE

.8
Pampa Nebraska, Chile
Ref. 25

.6
q)
0
(.-
(3
0 .u,:
q.)
N..--
q)
rY
.2

0 I,,,,1,,.,,I,,,,I,,,,I
•5 1.0 t .5 2.0 2.5
WGvelengl:h,/_m
_x _R _x _R _.x _R _R _R
: t t6 ol
,.I
.I
ol
•I " .I
,L

1
.,I .L ,L
• ¢
,,,i .t ,L
,,I .L ,L
.i
o:
,,L .L
.i .L oL
"i (
.I .L .L
.L oL "I S .L
°1
,L ,L oL
.L .L ,L
i
•: ! .L .L
c
oL
",I ! .L ,L "i .L
,t ,L .L
.L ,L "i[ .L

.I r
.I .L
.,L "i]
.L
.L
I
.I ! ,L .L
•! t ,t .L
•t I "1: ,L
._, .L
.t t J. ,L .L
,L •L 1
.L .L

155
 NO. 131 - SI:::ILTPOOL SOIL SI::IHPLE

.8 B
Death Valley,

•6 m
(]) /-"x
/
0
(-

o,LJ: -
q)
N.--
q)
¢'r"
.2

0 I J I I 1 _J

.3 •5 1,0 l ,5 2,0 2,5

Wovelength,,u,m
x _R .._x _R .._X _R _x _R _.X R

_0,
,i _u_ n__
.C X • ,ll,
.,j e.ll..

..J .c "t,
o,s
,,,.j "S;( .# 3ul_ e,,L ._,
o ",s • .,t.._n
°W o,J x"6
-_; • J "6 ._,
,_:
m . _ I q,
"W .L ,C
,6_, .:,
.I . ;I .t tE "I_
° =1 aW ._;
.,wl •o_. i
°W ,t

ill
t J,! -_.,I
.I .I "W
.J .'_ ! .0." I
.I _L
.°_ _
.i
.I i i ::t5 _L
:! "i

156
 N0.132- DRY SRNDY SOIL SRP1PLE

.8_
0-4% moisture content
Ref. 24

-6
(1)
0
c-
O

(D

(D
C12
.2 _

0 i l'''ll',l,l,,lll,l,jl
.3 .5 1.0 I .5 2.0 2.5
Wovelength,/zm
X R _R _x R X R X R

l if! il!i
"i
g •

-I

! :TJ

i_I,
t i
157
 NO. 133 - NET SlaNDY SOIL SF:INPLE

.8 22-32% moisture content.

Ref. 2u_

(D
0
(-

(_) .L j:
q.)

q)
o::i
.2

Illl,lllll'l_ll' lllll
•5 1.0 1,5 2.0 2.5
WGvelength,/zm
R R ), R R ?, R

:i!l
ill •I q3
:!I
ill
.13
.I_3
i "ii
1u_I
.IB

ii
.I
.I t 0

:g!g i lli
.I 1 0

!! 1 9
1 0
I!
158
 NO. 13L_ - SYENITE

.8
San Gabriel Mts., CA
Ref. 5

.6
(D
0
(-
C)
0 L_
(D
N--

fy-
.2
J
f

0_,,jl,j,,]j
I I
•3 .5 1.0 1 .S 2.0
Wavelength,/zm

_R

159
 NO, t 3S - DRY GLACI AL T ILL

.8
Onondaga County, NY
Ref. _S

.6
(D
©
c-
_D

0 .4
(1)
H---

rY
.2

0 I
.3
Wavel en g th,/_m

R R x R X R X _R

3
8

}t
_7

11111
 NO, 136 - RHYOLITE TUFF SRIIPLE

.8

.6
(1)
©
c-
@

(_) .L_
(1)

(1)
rY
.2

0 I I,Jl,l,,,,lllLII I111 I
.3 •5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.S
WGvelength,#m
R _R R ;k _R

':t! • t

.L

li
iiii
.L
I
"1
:l

.I
.I
.I

:I
.?1
iiil I11
.'7:

161
 NO, 137 - I:ILTOCUMULUS CLOUDS

.8
Black Sea, Russia
Apr 1971

.6
q3
©
(-
©

0
q3
N---
(D
rY
.2

o ...., 1 I I I i I I I
•3 .5 1.0 1.2
Wavelength,/zm

R R R X R R

:_
i!
.u_8

!I :li! • '7
!!
il!i
,S:
i .71
.71
i
162
 NO. 138 - STRFtTUS CLOUDS

.8
Black Sea, Russia
Apr. t371
Ref. 88

.6 m

q)
0
c-
©

C)
(D
N_
(D
or"
.2

I
0 I I I I 1 I
•3 .5 1.0
Wavelength,/_m

R R R _ _R

il
.Sq
:s

:_t ii!i .7 L
.7
.7
.7
:_

I.15

163
 NO. 13g - ClRROSTIRATUS tLOU[}S

.8
Black Sea, Russia
Apr. 18)71
Ref. 28

.6
(D
©
c-
C_
©
(D

(]9

.2

0 I I I I I I
.3 1.2
Wavelength,/4m

R X R __X R _x _R R
.u_8

sl I

Ii I
.7 _
.7
.7 .9[
i:I
.7
.7
.7
iii
164
 NO, l u_O - MIDDLE LI::::IYERCLOUDS

.8_
Ref. 3u_

.6
(1)
©
(-
©

©
(1)

(1.)
rY
.2

o i I,,,,I,JlJl,J,,It,Jll
.3 •S 1.0 1 .S 2.0 2 .S
Wavelength,/zm
R
.Lt!

:i
 NO. lust - BENSE ICE CLOUB SflMPLE

.8
Re.

.6

0
c-
O
-4J
©
q3
N--
(1)
fY
.2

0__L_ 1 I ,ll,_lltlll
•3 .5 1.0 i .S
Wovelength,/zm
R
.I.t1-t8

• 63
• 6"]
•"I 68
u_3
• 66
.552

• 9

::_
 NO. 1_2 - HOARFROST SAMPLE

.8
3 mm thick
Ref. 58

.6

0
C

0 \
/
LY

.2

0 ,I ,,t,lJ,,ll,l,,l,,J
5 t .0 1.5 2.0
WGvelength,/zm
X R X _R _x _x R X _R
.I

ili
.I "_

",_tXX
B_
,
BI
i

:_
el
q
el
i

i
el

t,

"_

Illl
e,

°, *X_P,

:_
•;lil
.I
°1
°1
°1
.I -",30

16T
 NO. 1L_3 - SNOkl SI:::tMPLE

Shifted Snow Condition.

Ref. 53

I .0 1 .S 2.0 2 .S
Wovelength,/zm
R x R _R R .._x R

°;
_E

ili i
°_
'-3
°;
°,

i il
_gP
.I
.I
.i
.I
.!
!:
11111
 NO. 1_ - TYPICI::IL SNOI,
q SI:::IHPLE

Hanover, NH
Ref. 35

2.0 2.5

), R X R ), R X R X R
,71
.'71
.71
: il

7 i'
1

169
 NO. l tJ:5 - FRESH SNOI,,I SI::::IIIPLE

1.0 Hanover, NH
Jan. 20, 1972
Ref. 35

.8

Q.)
0
C .6

(..)
Q.)
.u,
(1)
O::i

.2

0 i I I
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Wovelength,/zm
R R x _R R R
m m

A
.7't v

.71-
,Q
.7t_

:_'
:li
"_
"_1
•
°>

•;]
"_"
•_t .,_
"_,,_
• _)K

• ._
.i
.i
¢

ili!
c L _
", _'i"
.E "6

)
"I L'"
F_

t .I °_ _

E
)
.I fit
.I
•' .J

170
 NO, 1_6 - TI40 DRY OLD SNON SI::INPLE

1.0
Honover, NH
Jon. 22, i922
Ref. 35
.8

q3
0
(- ,6
E)
O
(1.)
_-- .Lt
(1)
¢y-

.2

0
•3 .5 1.0 1,5 2.0 2.5
WGvelength,czm
X R X X _R __X R k R

i - "l'
_X

'if
,1
°1
ol
.I
,1

:I
i:_
.^ _'I
R',, .1!

o:

.I
,ii
i ,_°] 5
I[

i[

t
(
ii:
.!
ol ,5 t _°1
.J ot
li N°;
_'i
-7; g.,.-
1 °L

171
 NO, 1L_7 - DRY FRESH SNOKI

.0 Russia
Leningrad,
Ref. 23
f
.8 m

(D
0
.6 n

0
0
(D

(D
n-"

.2 m

0 1 I I I I I
.3 .5 1.0 1.2
Wavelength,/zm

R R R R

.I .785

il .7!
:i
iI! .1

illl ! Ii '!
.71

L
"1.
"i
"i

172
 £0,, ] u_8 - ;dE-I SNOkl

Leningrad, Russia
Ref. 23

@
0
C

©
q.)

1.1D
Wavelength,/4m

;x
R _ R X R X _R

;
._
:s

173
 NO, lung _ I,,IflTER

.8
Denver, CO
Ref. u_o

.6 m

0
c-
O

pr"

0 I I I I

.3 .5
Wavelength,/_m

1T4
 NO. 150 - CLEAR LAKE HATER

.8
Lake Monroe, IN
June 10, 1:973
10 mg/I suspended solids.
Ref. 2
.6
(D
0
c-

-_J
0 L_
q3
N--

n/
,2

1 I'-i"-, I
.5

WGvelength,/_m

), R R R R _x _R

i li
1,
!

:83i ,7
1,1
.I
,7; .i
.7:
71 ! .1,
t

lil
1,
}:
1 1

175
 NO. 1_ 1 - TURBI D R I VER b,II_TF-R

.8
Wabash River, IN
_ rag,4 suspended solids.
Ref. 2

.6
(1)
0
_Z

0 .u_
(1)
H-.-
(1)
n.'-
.2

@
.3 .S
Wavelength,/J,m

_R X R 7, R _, R X R

ill !I!:_,
1...i
].!

:3_ :_ l:i
I
li
._,
::l!i::i lil I.
i.

illI :if"
,,!il,ili ! I.
t
1.

1T6
 NO. 1$2 - ASPHALT

.8
Denver, CO
Ref. u,o

.6
@
©

©
@

.8
/
@ I J 1 I I llJJlJlJJ._Jlll
.3 .S I .0 I .S 2.0
Wavelength,/4m
R
__x R R
.?u,

i°
.081
.06

•078
I,
•08Lt

"i
:_1
.5
i!I
6'
:6!
,1Lt
'13 l
"!
:{

.7 1

l??
 NO, :[53 - BLACKTOP

,8
Davis, CA
30 ° sol. elev.
Ref. 9

,6
<1)
0
(-
_D
-4J
o.L_
q3

q3
rY
.2

0 I I I I I 1

•3 .5
Wavelength,/_m

R
_R

1T8
 NO. 154 - CONCRETE

Denver, CO
Ref. 40

(L)
0
(--

0
q.)
'4---
(1)

1 J 1 J I I
2.0 2.5

R _R _x _R __x R

:_ l
:1'
• i

:4 I
:i I .'/I

I .486
i!
1
il
!
-I
1
I :1
,7;
t
1
I
I
t
1
1
ii
179
 NO. t 55 - SHINGLES

Denver, CO
Ref. LLO

(_)
C
0

EK

I I I I 1
I I i I I I
2.5
.5

X R ), R ;4 R ;4 _r
X _R J

1 ii -"°
1 1

4
 NO. 156 - t:::IRT
I F I C I t::::ILTURF

.8
Ref. 31

.6

0
c-
O

0
(1)

(1)
fY
.2

r_] I 1 i
0 I

.3 .S 1.0 1.2

Wavelength,/zm

X R X R X R R __x _R

Ii .71

.73
iI
,u,

il
i:B

181