458 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 4, NO.
2, JUNE 2011
Evaluation of Sentinel-2 Spectral Sampling for
Radiative Transfer Model Based LAI Estimation of
Wheat, Sugar Beet, and Maize
Katja Richter, Clement Atzberger, Francesco Vuolo, and Guido D’Urso
Abstract—The present study aimed at testing the potential of the
future E.O. mission Sentinel-2 (European GMES programme) for
the operational estimation of the Leaf Area Index (LAI) of three
contrasting agricultural crops (wheat, sugar beet, and maize). Re-
trieval of LAI was achieved by using a look-up table (LUT) based
inversion of a radiative transfer model (SAILH+PROSPECT).
Analyses were mainly carried out using hyperspectral data ac-
quired by the optical airborne instrument CASI, simulating the
future Sentinel-2 band setting. Estimated LAI was evaluated
using measurements of effective Plant Area Index (PAIe )
collected during the ESA AgriSAR 2006 campaign. Additionally,
measurements from two other experiments were tested to enrich
the validation database. The GMES targeted precision of 10% for
green LAI estimation was met for sugar beet (8%), at the limit
for wheat (11%) but not for maize (19%). For the three crops
the RMSE was in the range 0.4–0.6. The results demonstrate the
importance of using crop specific radiative transfer models. For
row crops with incomplete coverage and strong leaf clumping,
such as maize at early stage, the standard SAILH+PROSPECT
model does not appear suitable. However, results must be taken
cautiously in view of possible uncertainties of the PAIe measure-
ments. Within a future Sentinel-2 product validation framework,
a standard protocol for reference measurements is required to
assure consistency of validation data sets.
Index Terms—Sentinel-2, leaf area index, PROSAILH, look-up
table, model inversion, radiative transfer model.
I. INTRODUCTION
HE current and future Earth Observation (E.O.) database
T offers the opportunity to exploit the potential of remote
sensing in a fully operational context. It also provides the possi-
bility to test the performance of existing and new methodologies
Manuscript received April 08, 2009; revised February 02, 2010, June 10,
2010; accepted November 03, 2010. Date of publication December 17, 2010;
date of current version May 20, 2011. This work was supported in part by
PLEIADeS project (Participatory multi-Level EO-assisted tools for Irrigation
water management and Agricultural Decision-Support; Contract 037095
financed by U.E.-VI F.P.).
K. Richter is with the Department of Geography, Faculty of Geosciences,
Ludwig-Maximilians Universitaet Munich, 80333 Munich, Germany (e-mail:
katja.rich@gmail.com).
C. Atzberger is with University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vi-
enna Institute of Surveying, Remote Sensing and Land Information, 1190 Vi-
enna, Austria (e-mail: clement.atzberger@boku.ac.at).
F. Vuolo is with School of Geography, University of Southampton, SO171BJ,
UK (e-mail: F.Vuolo@soton.ac.uk).
G. D’Urso is with DIAAT, Faculty of Agraria, University of Naples “Federico
II”, 80055 Portici (Na), Italy (e-mail: durso@unina.it).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JSTARS.2010.2091492
1939-1404/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE
for land surface characterization. This is of particular interest in
the context of precision farming, where information of crop and
soil characteristics must be obtained at a fine scale, in a rapid
and cost-effective way, and with a stable and high accuracy.
In the framework of the Global Monitoring for Environment
and Security (GMES) initiative, the European Space Agency
(ESA) initiated the Sentinel-2 superspectral mission [1], aiming
at replacing and improving the current generation of satellite
sensors. The mission intends to provide continuity to services
relying on multi-spectral high-resolution optical observations
over global terrestrial surfaces, such as the adequate quantifica-
tion of geo-biophysical variables. The future system Sentinel-2
is scheduled to be launched in the year 2013. Spectral sampling
is based on sensors that have been used for vegetation moni-
toring in the last decades, such as SPOT, Landsat or MODIS.
With a spatial resolution of 10–60 m, Sentinel-2 is designed to
address high to medium resolution applications. A detailed tech-
nical characterization of the mission can be found in [1], [2].
Together with a number of other vegetation surface variables,
the implementation of Leaf Area Index (LAI) as Level 2b main
product is considered in the context of the mission. To ensure
that the final product can meet the user requirements, a goal
accuracy of 10% for the “maps with the green leaf area per unit
soil area”, i.e., LAI, was targeted [1].
Intense work has been done in the last decades to improve
the traditional empirical methods for LAI estimation from E.O.
data based on broad-band vegetation indices (VI). This included
the development of hyperspectral VIs [3], [4], spectral unmixing
approaches [5], red-edge position analysis [6], or angle indices
[7]. However, the need for collecting in situ calibration data sets
implies high costs and labor intensive measurement programs to
cover a wide range of species, canopy conditions and view/sun
constellations.
For these reasons, many studies focused on the more complex
approach of physically based variable estimation by means of
radiative transfer model (RTM) inversion (e.g., [8]–[11]). These
RTMs permit to use the full spectrum acquired by multi- to hy-
perspectral sensors in contrast to VIs that generally use only
2–3 spectral bands. In addition, RTMs can also exploit the di-
rectional signature of multi-angle sensors. Nevertheless, some
shortcomings of these models, such as the need of an extensive
parameterization, as well as the high computational demand,
have to be considered. Moreover, some RTMs may be too sim-
plistic to cope with complex canopies such as row crops, which
are often affected by foliage clumping [12], [13]. Furthermore,
RICHTER et al.: EVALUATION OF SENTINEL-2 SPECTRAL SAMPLING
the ill-posed problem has to be taken into account when per-
forming model inversion: different variable combinations may
produce almost identical spectra, resulting in significant uncer-
tainties in the estimated vegetation characteristics [14], [15].
To retrieve canopy biophysical variables from radiative
transfer models, three inversion methods are commonly used
[8], [14]: iterative optimization techniques [16], look-up tables
(LUT), e.g., [10], [11], [15], [17], [18], and neural networks
(NN) [14], [19]. Recently, the new approach of Support Vector
Machines Regression (SVR) has been applied to estimate bio-
physical variables from E.O. imagery, e.g., [20]. Several studies
found that LUT and NN were performing best in the inversion
of the RTMs in terms of accuracy and speed [8], [11], [21].
To validate canopy characteristics retrieved from E.O. data,
different devices and sampling schemes have been proposed in
the last decades. A prominent device for LAI measurements is
for example the LAI-2000 Plant Canopy Analyzer (LI-COR,
Lincoln, Nebraska USA) instrument. Measurements with such
devices presume an accuracy of the in situ measurements (i.e.,
‘actual LAI’ [22]) substantially higher than of the E.O. based es-
timates. This is often difficult as the characteristics of a (pixel)
area need to be measured to be comparable with remote sensing
data. In addition, the instruments themselves rely on some as-
sumptions in order to allow fast and easy data acquisitions com-
pared to destructive sampling. With the LAI-2000 device, for
instance, if no corrections were applied to account for stems or
senescent leaves, the measured variable corresponds to ‘Plant
Area Index’ (PAI), e.g., [23]. Moreover, due to the assump-
tion of a random distribution of foliage, clumping is only par-
tially regarded by the instrument and corresponding software
[24], giving therefore effective LAI as output rather
than actual LAI (or PAI, respectively). For these reasons, vari-
ables measured by the LAI-2000 instrument will also be called
‘ ’ throughout the present study [22], [23].
The influence of clumping is especially pronounced for het-
erogeneous crops (e.g., maize and sugar beet). The measured
values of these crops will be therefore more exposed to bias than
homogeneous crops such as wheat.
Other error sources related to the use of optical devices can
affect the measurements, including illumination conditions,
saturation effects, or instrument’s simplifications [22]. Recent
studies propose therefore the use [22], [23] or the combination
[25] of Digital Hemispherical Photographs (DHPs) with the
LAI-2000, which may help to correct for these issues and
thus providing more reliable estimates of than from
LAI-2000 (alone).
For assessing clumping and thus actual LAI, it is also impor-
tant that all samples are estimated in a reliable and con-
sistent way [24]. However, inconsistency may occur between
different estimates especially for multiple samples in het-
erogeneous canopies, as highlighted by a recent study [24]. A
quantification of according to [24] is therefore desirable
before using the data for further analyses.
The main objective of the present work is the experimental
assessment of the future Sentinel-2 band setting for RTM based
LAI retrieval of wheat, sugar beet, and maize. We evaluated if
the targeted retrieval accuracy of 10% [1] can be reached for
459
these three crops using the widely applied SAILH+PROSPECT
canopy reflectance model, originally developed for homo-
geneous canopies. The retrieval accuracy is assessed against
standard LAI-2000 measurements without correction for leaf
clumping or any of the before mentioned problems. For RTM
inversion, the fast and simple LUT approach has been selected
since it presents an objective repeatable approach that has
demonstrated potential in operational applications, e.g., for
MODIS LAI products [26].
II. MATERIAL AND METHODS
A. Campaign and Study Area
The present research was mainly done in the context of the
ESA AgriSAR 2006 campaign [27], designed and performed on
the consolidated long-term test site DEMMIN, Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern, Germany. The campaign focused on the Goermin
farm (with central coordinates N 53 59 24 and E 13 16 10 )
and included a range of ground measurements, airborne and
satellite acquisitions. Principal crops of the area comprise winter
wheat, sugar beet, winter barley, winter rape, and maize, grown
on very large parcels (in average 80 ha). Details of the campaign
and data acquisitions can be found in [27].
B. Imagery: Acquisition and Processing
Hyperspectral images were acquired with the Compact
Airborne Spectrographic Imager (CASI 1500, ITRES Research
Ltd., 2006) on June 6 and July 5, 2006. CASI provides a
nearly-continuum spectrum over its entire spectral range, with
very fine observation channels [28]. Therefore, the sensor offers
a good opportunity to mimic the future multi-spectral system
Sentinel-2.
The area of interest was scanned around 10:00 UTC, corre-
sponding to a solar zenith angle of 35 . The sensor (fly al-
titude 3100 m asl) acquired hyperspectral data at 1.5 m spatial
resolution in 288 bands between 370 and 1050 nm, with a band-
width (FWHMs) of 2.2 nm and a field of view (FOV) equal to
23.6 . Spectral calibration and atmospheric correction of the im-
agery were carried out by the Laboratory for Earth Observation
of the University of Valencia, by using an optimized version of
the MODTRAN4 code [28]. The specific sensitivity functions
of Sentinel-2 wavebands were applied to configure the CASI
measurements. To imitate the planned spatial resolution of Sen-
tinel-2 (4 channels with 10 m and 4 with 20 m, [1]), the high
spatial resolution CASI data (1.5 m) were degraded to a coarser
resolution of 20 m.
To enlarge the present validation data base, remotely sensed
data from two other experiments were consulted: 1) hyperspec-
tral field measurements using an ASD FieldSpec UV-VNIR
field spectrometer acquired during the PLEIADeS 2007 field
campaign in Sardinia, Italy [29], and 2) imagery of the Com-
pact High Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (CHRIS) on the
Proba platform collected during SPARC 2004 campaign, in
Barrax, Spain [30]. The remotely sensed data were configured
according to the Sentinel-2 spectral bands. The experiments are
described in detail in [29], [30]. As none of the three sensors
460 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 4, NO. 2, JUNE 2011
covered the SWIR region only the visible and near infrared
bands of Sentinel-2 could be analyzed.
C. In Situ Measurements
Leaf area index ( , respectively) measurements used in
this study were carried out—simultaneously to the sensor over-
passes—on three fields at the DEMMIN site: wheat in June
2006 (ID 250: 15 samples), sugar beet (ID 102: 8 samples),
and maize (ID 222: 16 samples) in July 2006. Measurements
were performed with the LAI-2000 Plant Canopy Analyzer in-
strument, widely and routinely applied in different studies, e.g.,
[10], [31]–[33].
Each of the 39 AgriSAR in situ values corresponded
to the average of 24 measurements (i.e., 3 repetitions of 1 above
and 8 below canopy readings). This scheme represented an El-
ementary Surface Unit (ESU) of approximately 20 m 20 m.
Measurements of the rather homogeneous wheat canopy were
taken randomly within the ESU. In case of maize and sugar
beet, however, the row structure had to be taken into account.
Therefore, the sampling was composed of an alternation of be-
tween- and within-rows measurements to capture the spatial het-
erogeneity of the canopies. The standard deviation around the
mean has been kept as a measure of uncertainty. Field measured
values ranged from 3.8 to 5.8 for wheat, from 1.0 to 2.0
for sugar beet, and from 0.9 to 2.3 for maize.
To consider a wider range of canopy densities, 21 measure-
ments of maize from the PLEIADeS 2007 field campaign and
8 measurements of maize and 6 of sugar beet from the SPARC
2004 campaign were included. In both experiments, measure-
ments were performed by using the same protocol as described
above for the AgriSAR campaign.
Table I gives an overview about the monitored crops. As the
present study uses from different campaigns, only lim-
ited information about raw data was available. This made it
impossible to carry out further elaboration such as uncertainty
analyses as the comparability of the final estimates would be
reduced. Generally it can be expected that for wheat LAI
actual LAI, but for maize and sugar beet LAI actual LAI.
Hence, there is the possibility that some of these measurements
are within an error range of above 10%, which would be crit-
ical in view of the study objective. However, LAI products de-
rived from satellite or airborne sensor data correspond better to
the measured by LAI-2000 (or other optical instruments)
than actual LAI [34].
D. Radiative Transfer Model
The Scattering from Arbitrarily Inclined Leaves (SAILH)
model [35], [36], later extended to take into account the
“hot-spot” effect [37], was exploited in this study. The SAILH
model is based on the turbid medium assumption and describes
the canopy structure in a fairly simple way. To account for
variations in leaf structure and composition, the canopy re-
flectance model was combined with a leaf optical properties
model (PROSPECT) [38] to ‘PROSAILH’ (e.g., [11], [39]).
The PROSAILH model, widely used and validated, produces
realistic results of bidirectional reflectance spectra for different
crops as reported by several studies, e.g., [9], [16], [40]–[42].
For this reason, it was preferred over other radiative transfer
TABLE I
DESCRIPTION OF CROPS OF THE AGRISAR CAMPAIGN (CORRESPONDING TO
TIME OF SENSOR OVERPASS) AND FROM ADDITIONAL DATASET OF PLEIADES
AND SPARC CAMPAIGNS, MEAN VALUES (STANDARD DEVIATIONS, SD)
algorithms where the canopy is described in a more complex
way (for a review of these models see [12]), i.e., 3-D hybrid
radiative transfer [43] or Monte Carlo ray tracing models [44].
Such models may be more accurate, but require larger parame-
terization efforts [8], [12]. In particular, geometric information
about the specific canopy architecture of the different crop types
is needed, rendering such models less suitable for operational
applications in large heterogeneous areas.
E. LUT-Based Inversion Procedure
The PROSAILH model was inverted by using a look-up table
(LUT). Three principal steps have to be performed to realize this
approach:
First, an appropriate number of canopy realizations must be
generated. For this, a LUT size of 100000 cases of canopy vari-
able combinations was chosen according to the results of [11].
The bounds and distributions of the selected canopy variables
are depicted in Table II. Variable bounds were taken from mea-
surement campaigns and/or other studies working with the same
crops. They were chosen in order to describe the characteris-
tics of all crop types used in the study. Gaussian distributions
were generated for LAI and chlorophyll content in order
to put more emphasis on the variable values being present in
the actual growth stages of the crops [45]. Instead, the average
leaf angle (ALA), the hot spot factor (HotS), a soil reflectance
factor , dry matter content and leaf mesophyll pa-
rameter were sampled from a uniform distribution since no
information from the campaigns measurements was available.
As the absorption of leaf water is not influencing the spectral
range used in this study ( nm), leaf water thickness
was fixed to an arbitrary value (Table II).
The soil reflectance spectrum, another essential input into the
model, was extracted from the CASI imagery (mean of several
bare soil pixels). A simple multiplicative soil reflectance factor
was introduced, which was assumed to mimic soil water
content and surface roughness induced variations of reflectance
[46]. Within the distributions defined in Table II, a random
sampling scheme was applied to all variables. To demonstrate
the general applicability of the method and to render the results
comparable, the same LUT size and variable settings were
implemented for PLEIADeS and SPARC campaigns data
[29], [30].
RICHTER et al.: EVALUATION OF SENTINEL-2 SPECTRAL SAMPLING
Fig. 1. PAI and estimated LAI values for (a) wheat, (b) sugar beet, (c) maize, and (d): all crops. For (a)–(c) point symbols ‘.’ represent AgriSAR data; stars ‘*’
SPARC data, and circles ‘o’ PLEIADeS data. For (d): circles ‘o’ represent wheat, stars ‘*’ sugar beet, and point ‘.’ maize. LAI estimates were obtained from LUT
inversion approach and using the Sentinel-2 band configuration. Standard deviations of measurements and simulations are indicated by error bars in Fig. (a)–(c).
Accuracy is described by root mean square error (RMSE) and relative RMSE (rel.% error).
TABLE II
RANGE AND DISTRIBUTION OF INPUT VARIABLES USED TO ESTABLISH THE
SYNTHETIC CANOPY REFLECTANCE DATA BASE FOR USE IN THE LUT
In a second step, the model was applied in direct mode to sim-
ulate reflectance signatures corresponding to the proposed spec-
tral sampling of the Sentinel-2 system. Table 3.10.1 in [1] gives
the specifications of the sensors, with central wavebands, spec-
tral width, bandwidth, purpose and heritage of each channel. All
wavebands interesting for LAI or vegetation studies were in-
cluded in the simulation. Hence, the calculations comprised the
visible (490, 560, 665 nm), the red edge (705 and 740 nm) and
the near infrared (775, 842, and 865 nm) parts of the spectrum.
To take into account sensor and model uncertainties, a Gaussian
(white) noise was added to the simulated canopy reflectance.
The noise was assumed to be proportional to the reflectance
(mean of zero and standard deviation of 0.04) [19], [39]. The
simulated reflectance spectra were resampled according to the
Sentinel-2 sensitivity.
In the final step the LUT was sorted along with a simple cost
function (1)
(1)
461
calculating the root mean square error (RMSE) between mea-
sured and simulated spectra [41] over all
wavelengths as e.g., [11], [17], [47].
Analyses demonstrated that the sole use of the variable com-
bination corresponding to the smallest RMSE decreases the esti-
mation accuracy [10]. Therefore, for the final solution, all vari-
able combinations within 10% of the lowest RMSE value (1)
were averaged, similar to [21] and [41]. From all possible solu-
tions (i.e., located within the 10% of lowest RMSE), the stan-
dard deviations were calculated and kept as a measure of re-
trieval uncertainty.
Including prior information about the crop status into the al-
gorithm has proven to give more accurate estimates, e.g., [15],
[18]. However, only little information is usually available about
an agricultural area. Thus, for the operational retrieval of bio-
physical variables from E.O. data, applied algorithms have to
fulfill either the requirement to be universally valid or to exploit
local/regional information of the vegetation monitored. The im-
plementation of such prior knowledge about crop’s phenolog-
ical status or plant species can be deduced for instance from
land cover mapping, as it is already done for medium/coarse
resolution sensor data in University of Toronto (UofT) GLOB-
CARBON LAI algorithm [48], [49]. Assuming availability of
such information within the variable retrieval algorithms of the
future satellite mission, denser samplings around the most prob-
able and LAI values were applied (Table II) in the construc-
tion of the LUT.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Scatter plots between and estimated LAI values for the
different crops are shown in Fig. 1 (wheat (a), sugar beet (b),
maize (c), and for all (d)), including error bars of standard
deviation of measurements and retrievals.
In absolute terms (RMSE), the comparison of and LAI
estimation based on the spectral band configuration of the fu-
ture Sentinel-2 system performed best for sugar beet and maize
(RMSE: 0.42). For wheat, on the contrary, only a RMSE of 0.64
could be reached, which has to be seen, however, with respect
to the high LAI level of this crop. Consequently, in terms of
relative accuracies, i.e., RMSE divided by the mean of PAI
(rel. RMSE), the best performing crops were sugar beet with
rel. RMSE of 8.5%, and wheat, with rel. RMSE of 10.9%. For
462 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 4, NO. 2, JUNE 2011
maize, only a rel. RMSE of 18.8% was obtained. Hence, in view
of the GMES target, the required accuracy was met for sugar
beet and marginal for wheat. In case of maize the estimation ac-
curacy failed to reach the targeted level of rel. RMSE % be interpreted carefully considering potential bias introduced by
despite an absolute RMSE of 0.4. However, it must be kept
in mind that these results are only valid for the present sample
data set. In some cases, measurement uncertainty of due
to bias may also rise above 10%, as discussed in the introduc-
tion.
In general, the inversion results reveal an underestimation of
high values (except maize): Relationships between mea-
sured and simulated variables have the following slope values:
0.45 for wheat, 0.96 for sugar beet, 1 for maize and 0.93 for all
crops. Evaluation uncertainties may for example arise from the
different signals obtained and associated with LAI by the remote
sensor ( [31]) and by the LAI-2000 instrument . and multi-angular observations, which are not always avail-
That implies that reference values could be too high, if non-
photosynthetic canopy components, such as wheat ears—which
were present in this growth stage—reduced the measured gap
fractions of the LAI-2000 instrument.
The observed underestimation for high values of
wheat and sugar beet may also result from the nonlinearity of
the LAI-reflectance relationship, leading to saturation effects
[19], [39]. The canopy architecture of maize and sugar beet
deviates from the turbid medium assumption of the PROSAILH
model [40]: maize, but also sugar beet, is typically row-planted
and affected by leaf clumping (i.e., leaves are grouped together
rather than distributed uniformly). Hence, the signature origi-
nating from the vegetation is underrepresented, leading to the
observed underestimation of actual LAI ( , respectively).
Similar findings were also described in other studies applying
the same model, e.g., [49]–[51]. However, these uncertainties
may not only arise due to the modeling approach but can be
the result of inadequate geolocation or atmospheric correc-
tions of the E.O. data. A possible explanation of the better
results achieved for sugar beet may also be related to the ad-
vanced growth stages, exhibiting already a more homogeneous
coverage (50–80%). Consequently, the influence of the soil
background (which is further enhanced by the row structure
of this crop) is probably stronger for maize fields compared
to sugar beet. In a future study it has to be tested if a simple
mixture model, such as the one proposed by [39] at landscape
level or GeoSail [50], [52] is capable of reducing this effect.
These considerations are also supported by [13], who proposed
the use of a row structure model for the early growth stage
(before elongation) of maize canopies, and a homogeneous one
for later growth stages (after elongation).
In addition, we tested the case that the (average) prior guesses
( and ) present the estimated LAI. Relative
RMSE values increased markedly for sugar beet (30%) some-
what for maize (20%) and little for wheat (13%). This proves
that the RTM retrieval is significantly more accurate than the a
priori guess.
IV. CONCLUSION
Leaf area index was estimated for wheat, sugar beet, and
maize based on the spectral sampling of the future E.O. satellites
Sentinel-2. The targeted GMES goal accuracy of % could
be achieved for sugar beet 8% , marginal for wheat 11%
but not for maize 19% . However, these accuracies have to
the measurements of the reference data set.
The results of the study confirm that the 1-dimensional
SAILH+PROSPECT model may be sufficient for homoge-
neous structured canopies, even though saturation can occur
for values higher than 4. For heterogeneous row crops
instead, such as maize, a higher complexity of modeling may
be required. Such kind of 3-dimensional radiative transfer mod-
eling is for instance implemented in the MODIS-15 operative
algorithm for broadleaf crops [26]. However, the MODIS-15
approach requires information of canopy architectural types,
derived from classification of vegetation in different biomes
able from high spatial resolution sensors needed for smaller
field-scale management purposes. Hence, for operational appli-
cations, the PROSAILH model can be a reasonable compromise
between simple empirical VI-based methods and very complex
RTMs for the retrieval of LAI in most crop systems, when
using observations of limited spectral dimension and with one
viewing angle only. The model is for instance applied in the
CYCLOPES algorithm for globe wide biophysical products
from VEGETATION [39]. Though, limited accuracy of the
approach has been shown by a recent study [49].
Conclusively, the coupled PROSPECT SAILH model with
an implemented LUT algorithm can be a suitable tool to support
the elaboration of Sentinel-2 mission data to ensure the deliv-
ering of quality products. The simulated Sentinel-2 configura-
tion was very encouraging in terms of absolute errors (RMSE:
0.4–0.6 LAI), but measurement uncertainties must be taken into
account. However, when accuracies of 10% are required for not
yet well established row crops, more complex RTMs should be
applied. In order to render such approaches suitable for future
operational applications, further validation exercises of existing
complex 3-D models are proposed.
Regarding a future operational system for the retrieval of bio-
physical variables from the Sentinel-2 sensors, the implementa-
tion of contextual [14], [53] and multi-temporal retrieval strate-
gies [54], i.e., using prior knowledge of the crops, should be
tested. This could be a valuable alternative to very complex
models requiring high parameterization loads.
Finally, we strongly suggest the definition of a standard pro-
cedure for the generation of in situ LAI (or , respectively)
records, including suitable instruments (DHP, LAI-2000), ap-
propriate sampling schemes, and accompanying corrections as
proposed by [24]. This should assure the generation of a consis-
tent and reliable reference database within a future Sentinel-2
products validation framework.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thank L. Guanter and colleagues from the Lab-
oratory for Earth Observation, University of Valencia (Spain),
for radiometric and spectral calibrations and atmospheric cor-
rection of CASI and CHRIS/Proba imagery.
RICHTER et al.: EVALUATION OF SENTINEL-2 SPECTRAL SAMPLING
REFERENCES
[1] GMES Sentinel-2 Mission Requirements Document, issue 2 revision
0-30/01/2007, 31 pp. European Space Agency (ESA), 2007 [Online].
Available: http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/GMES/GMES_Sen-
tinel2_MRD_issue_2.0_update.pdf
[2] GMES Sentinel-2 performance and products summary, issue 1 revision
1, 20/08/2008, 9 pp. European Space Agency (ESA), 2007.
[3] R. Darvishzadeh, C. Atzberger, S. van Wieren, and A. Skidmore, “Es-
timation of vegetation LAI from hyperspectral reflectance data: Effects
of soil type and plant architecture,” Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs., vol. 10, no.
3, pp. 358–373, 2008.
[4] D. Haboudane, J. R. Miller, E. Pattey, P. J. Zarco-Tejada, and I. B.
Strachan, “Hyperspectral vegetation indexes and novel algorithms for
predicting green LAI of crop canopies: Modeling and validation in the
context of precision agriculture,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 90, pp.
337–352, 2004.
[5] B. Hu, J. R. Miller, J. M. Chen, and A. B. Hollinger, “Retrieval of
the canopy leaf area index in the BOREAS flux tower sites using
linear spectral mixture analysis,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 89, pp.
176–188, 2004.
[6] M. Cho, A. Skidmore, and C. Atzberger, “Towards red-edge positions
less sensitive to canopy biophysical parameters for leaf chlorophyll es-
timations using properties optique spectrales des feuilles (PROSPECT)
and scattering by arbitrarily inclined leaves (SAILH) simulated data,”
Int. J. Remote Sens., vol. 29, no. 7–8, pp. 2241–2255, 2008.
[7] S. Khanna, A. Palacios-Orueta, M. L. Whiting, D. Riaño, J. Litago, and
S. L. Ustin, “Development of angle indexes for soil moisture estima-
tion, dry matter detection and land-cover discrimination,” Remote Sens.
Environ., vol. 109, pp. 154–165, 2007.
[8] F. Baret and S. Buis, “Estimating canopy characteristics from Remote
Sensing observations. review of methods and associated problems,”
in Advances in Land Remote Sensing: System, Modeling, Inversion
and Application, S. Liang, Ed. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer,
2008, pp. 172–301.
[9] S. Jacquemoud, C. Bacour, H. Poilve, and J. P. Frangi, “Comparison
of four radiative transfer models to simulate plant canopies reflectance:
Direct and inverse mode,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 74, pp. 417–481,
2000.
[10] R. Darvishzadeh, A. Skidmore, M. Schlerf, and C. Atzberger, “Inver-
sion of a radiative transfer model for estimating vegetation LAI and
chlorophyll in a heterogeneous grassland,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol.
112, no. 5, pp. 2592–2604, 2008.
[11] M. Weiss, F. Baret, R. B. Myneni, A. Pragnère, and Y. Knyazikhin,
“Investigation of a model inversion technique to estimate canopy
biophysical variables from spectral and directional reflectance data,”
Agronomie, vol. 20, pp. 3–22, 2000.
[12] W. A. Dorigo, R. Zurita-Milla, A. J. W. de Wit, J. Brazile, R. Singh,
and M. E. Schaepman, “A review on reflective remote sensing and data
assimilation techniques for enhanced agroecosystem modeling,” Int. J.
Appl. Earth Obs., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 165–193, 2007.
[13] Y. Yao, Q. Liu, Q. Liu, and X. Li, “LAI retrieval and uncertainty evalu-
ations for typical row-planted crops at different growth stages,” Remote
Sens. Environ., vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 94–106, 2008.
[14] C. Atzberger, “Object-based retrieval of biophysical canopy variables
using artificial neural nets and radiative transfer models,” Remote Sens.
Environ., vol. 93, pp. 53–67, 2004.
[15] B. Combal, F. Baret, and M. Weiss, “Improving canopy variables esti-
mation from remote sensing data by exploiting ancillary information.
Case study on sugar beet canopies,” Agronomie, vol. 22, no. 2, pp.
205–215, 2002.
[16] S. Jacquemoud, F. Baret, B. Andrieu, F. M. Danson, and K. Jaggard,
“Extraction of vegetation biophysical parameters by inversion of the
PROSPECT+SAIL models on sugar beet canopy reflectance data. Ap-
plication to TM and AVIRIS sensors,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 52,
pp. 163–172, 1995.
[17] B. Combal, F. Baret, M. Weiss, A. Trubuil, D. Macé, and A. Prag-
nére, “Retrieval of canopy biophysical variables from bidirectional
reflectance using prior information to solve the ill-posed inverse
problem,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 84, pp. 1–15, 2003.
[18] M. Yebra and E. Chuvieco, “Generation of a species-specific look-up
table for fuel moisture content assessment,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Earth
Obs. Remote Sens. (JSTARS), vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 21–26, 2009.
463
[19] C. Bacour, F. Baret, D. Béal, M. Weiss, and K. Pavageau, “Neural
network estimation of LAI, fAPAR, fCover and LAIxCab, from top
of canopy MERIS reflectance data: Principles and validation,” Remote
Sens. Environ., vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 313–325, 2006.
[20] G. Camp-Valls, J. Muñoz-Marí, L. Gómez-Chova, K. Richter, and J.
Calpe-Maravilla, “Biophysical parameter estimation with a semisuper-
vised support vector machine,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., vol.
6, pp. 248–252, Apr. 2009.
[21] K. Richter, C. Atzberger, F. Vuolo, P. Weihs, and G. D’Urso, “Exper-
imental assessment of the Sentinel-2 band setting for RTM-based LAI
retrieval of sugar beet and maize,” Can. J. Remote Sens., vol. 35, no. 3,
pp. 230–247, 2009.
[22] S. Garrigues, N. V. Shabanov, K. Swanson, J. T. Morissette, F. Baret,
and R. B. Myneni, “Intercomparison and sensitivity analysis of leaf
area index retrievals from LAI-2000, AccuPAR, and digital hemispher-
ical photography over croplands,” Agr. Forest Meteorol., vol. 148, no.
8–9, pp. 1193–1209, 2008.
[23] S. G. Leblanc, J. M. Chen, R. Fernandes, D. W. Deering, and A.
Conley, “Methodology comparison for canopy structure parameters
extraction from digital hemispherical photography in boreal forests,”
Agr. Forest Meteorol., vol. 129, pp. 187–207, 2005.
[24] Y. Ryu, T. Nilson, H. Kobayashi, O. Sonnentag, and D. D. Baldocchi,
“On the correct estimation of effective leaf area index: Does it reveal
information on clumping effects?,” Agr. Forest Meteorol., vol. 150, pp.
463–472, 2010.
[25] Y. Ryu, O. Sonnentag, T. Nilson, R. Vargas, H. Kobayashi, R. Wenk,
and D. D. Baldocchi, “How to quantify tree leaf area index in a het-
erogeneous savanna ecosystem: A multi-instrument and multi-model
approach,” Agr. Forest Meteorol., vol. 150, pp. 63–76, 2010.
[26] R. B. Myneni, S. Hoffman, Y. Knyazikhin, J. L. Privette, J. Glassy,
Y. Tian, Y. Wang, X. Song, Y. Zhang, G. R. Smith, A. Lotsch, M.
Friedl, J. T. Morisette, P. Votava, R. R. Nemani, and S. W. Running,
“Global products of vegetation leaf area and fraction absorbed PAR
from year one of MODIS data,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 83, no.
1–2, pp. 214–231, 2002.
[27] I. Hajnsek et al., “AgriSAR 2006: Airborne SAR and optics campaigns
for an improved monitoring of agricultural processes and practices,” in
Proc. AGRISAR and EAGLE Campaigns Final Workshop, Noordwijk,
The Netherlands, 2007, p. 8.
[28] L. Guanter, V. Estellés, and J. Moreno, “Spectral calibration and atmo-
spheric correction of ultra-fine spectral and spatial resolution Remote
Sensing data. Application to CASI-1500 data,” Remote Sens. Environ.,
vol. 109, pp. 54–65, 2007.
[29] K. Richter, F. Vuolo, and G. D’Urso, “Leaf area index and surface
albedo estimation: Comparative analysis from vegetation indexes to
radiative transfer models,” in Proc. IEEE IGARSS, Boston, MA, Jul.
2008, vol. 3, pp. 736–739.
[30] K. Richter and W. Timmermans, “Physically based retrieval of crop
characteristics for improved water use estimates,” Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci., vol. 13, pp. 663–674, 2009.
[31] M. C. González-Sanpedro, T. Le Toan, J. Moreno, L. Kergoat, and E.
Rubio, “Seasonal variations of leaf area index of agricultural fields re-
trieved from landsat data,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 112, no. 3, pp.
810–824, 2007.
[32] G. D’Urso, L. Dini, F. Vuolo, and L. Guanter, “Retrieval of vegeta-
tion biophysical parameters by inverting hyperspectral, multiangular
CHRIS/PROBA data from SPARC 2003,” in Proc. 2nd CHRIS/Proba
Workshop, Frascati, Italy, Apr. 2004.
[33] J. M. Chen, A. Govind, O. Sonnentag, Y. Q. Zhang, A. Barr, and B.
Amiro, “Leaf area index measurements at Fluxnet-Canada forest sites,”
Agr. Forest Meteorol., vol. 140, no. 1–4, pp. 257–268, 2006.
[34] P. Stenberg, M. Rautiainen, T. Manninen, P. Voipio, and H. Smolander,
“Reduced simple ratio better than NDVI for estimating LAI in Finnish
pine and spruce stands,” Silva Fennica, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 3–14, 2004.
[35] W. Verhoef, “Light scattering by leaf layers with application to canopy
reflectance modeling: The SAIL model,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol.
16, pp. 125–141, 1984.
[36] W. Verhoef, “Earth observation modeling based on layer scattering ma-
trices,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 17, pp. 165–178, 1985.
[37] A. Kuusk, “The hot-spot effect in plant canopy reflectance. Photon-
vegetation interactions,” in Applications in Optical Remote Sensing and
Plant Ecology, R. B. Myneni and J. Ross, Eds. New York: Springer-
Verlag, 1991, pp. 139–159.
464 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 4, NO. 2, JUNE 2011
[38] S. Jacquemoud and F. Baret, “PROSPECT: A model of leaf optical
properties spectra,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 34, pp. 75–91, 1990.
[39] F. Baret, O. Hagolle, B. Geiger, P. Bicheron, B. Miras, M. Huc, B.
Berthelot, F. Nino, M. Weiss, O. Samain, J. L. Roujean, and M. Leroy,
“LAI, fAPAR and fCover CYCLOPES global products derived from
vegetation. Part 1: Principles of the algorithm,” Remote Sens. Environ.,
vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 275–286, 2007.
[40] B. Andrieu, F. Baret, S. Jacquemoud, T. Malthus, and M. Steven,
“Evaluation of an improved version of SAIL model for simulating
bidirectional reflectance of sugar beet canopies,” Remote Sens. Env-
iron., vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 247–257, 1997.
[41] B. Koetz, F. Baret, H. Poilvè, and J. Hill, “Use of coupled canopy
structure dynamic and radiative transfer models to estimate biophysical
canopy characteristics,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 95, pp. 115–124,
2005.
[42] S. Jacquemoud, W. Verhoef, F. Baret, P. J. Zarco-Tejada, G. Asner,
+
C. Francois, and S. L. Ustin, “PROSPECT SAIL: 15 Years of use for
land surface characterization,” in Proc. IEEE IGARSS, Denver, CO, Jul.
2006, vol. 1, pp. 1992–1995.
[43] S. Duthoit, V. Demarez, J. P. Gastellu-Etchegorry, E. Martin, and J.
L. Roujean, “Assessing the effects of the clumping phenomenon on
BRDF of a maize crop based on 3-D numerical scenes using DART
model,” Agr. Forest Meteorol., vol. 148, pp. 1341–1352, 2008.
[44] N. S. Goel and T. Grier, “Estimation of canopy parameters for inhomo-
geneous vegetation canopies from reflectance data: III. Trim: A model
for radiative transfer in heterogeneous three-dimensional canopies,”
Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 255–293, 1988.
[45] H. Gerighausen, E. Borg, C. Wloczyk, B. Fichtelmann, A. Günther, H.
H. Vajen, M. Rosenberg, M. Schulz, and H. G. Engler, “DEMMIN—A
test site for the validation of remote sensing data products. General
description and application during AgriSAR 2006,” in Proc. AGRISAR
and EAGLE Campaigns Final Workshop, Noordwijk, The Netherlands,
2007, p. 9.
[46] C. Atzberger, T. Jarmer, M. Schlerf, B. Koetz, and W. Werner, “Re-
trieval of wheat bio-physical attributes from hyperspectral data and
SAILH+PROSPECT radiative transfer model,” in Proc. 3rd EARSeL
Workshop on Imaging Spectroscopy, Herrsching, Germany, May 2003.
[47] K. Richter, P. Rischbeck, J. Eitzinger, W. Schneider, F. Suppan, and P.
Weihs, “Plant growth monitoring and potential drought risk assessment
by means of earth observation data,” Int. J. Remote Sens., vol. 29, no.
17–18, pp. 4943–4960, 2008.
[48] F. Deng, J. M. Chen, S. Plummer, M. Chen, and J. Pisek, “Algorithm
for global leaf area index retrieval using satellite imagery,” IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 2219–2229, 2006.
[49] F. Canisius, R. Fernandes, and J. Chen, “Comparison and evaluation
of medium resolution imaging spectrometer leaf area index products
across a range of land use,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 114, no. 5, pp.
950–960, 2010.
[50] D. J. Major, G. B. Schaalje, C. Wiegand, and B. L. Blad, “Accuracy
and sensitivity analyses of sail model-predicted reflectance of maize,”
Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 61–70, 1992.
[51] B. Koetz, M. Kneubühler, S. Huber, J. Schopfer, and F. Baret, “LAI
estimation based on multi-temporal CHRIS/PROBA data and radiative
transfer modelling,” in Proc. ENVISAT Symp., Noordwijk, The Nether-
lands, 2007, Montreux 2007, ESA Publications Division.
[52] K. F. Huemmrich, “The GeoSail model: A simple addition to the SAIL
model to describe discontinuous canopy reflectance,” Remote Sens. En-
viron., vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 423–431, 2001.
[53] C. Atzberger and K. Richter, “Geostatistical regularization of inverse
models for the retrieval of vegetation biophysical variables,” in Proc
SPIE 2009 Conf., 2009, p. 747810.
[54] C. Lauvernet, F. Baret, L. Hascoët, S. Buis, and F. X. Le Dimet, “Multi-
temporal-patch ensemble inversion of coupled surface-atmosphere ra-
diative transfer models for land surface characterization,” Remote Sens.
Environ., vol. 112, pp. 851–861, 2008.
Katja Richter received the Ph.D. degree from the
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences
Vienna, Austria, in 2009.
From 2007 to 2009 she was with the Department of
Agricultural Engineering and Agronomy, University
of Naples Federico II, Italy, within the PLEIADeS
project, addressing the use of E.O. based technolo-
gies for the determination of irrigation water require-
ments. Currently, she is with the Department of Ge-
ography, Ludwig-Maximilians Universitaet Munich,
Germany, where she is working within the EnMAP
Core Science Team (ECST) for agriculture. In this context she focuses on the
development of fast and efficient methods for the retrieval of biophysical vari-
ables from the future German hyperspectral satellite mission.
Clement Atzberger received the Ph.D. degree on
crop growth modeling and remote sensing data
assimilation from Trier University, Germany, in
1997.
He is currently full Professor and head of the Insti-
tute for Surveying, Remote Sensing and Land Infor-
mation (IVFL) at the University of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria. After
two years as Assistant Professor at ITC, Enschede,
The Netherlands, and further two years in private in-
dustry (GeoSys SA, Toulouse, France), from 2007 to
2010 he was with the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission,
Ispra, Italy. His main expertise is in the following fields: coarse resolution time
series analysis (including noise removal and retrieval of phenological markers),
radiative transfer modeling (forward and inverse) in agriculture and forestry,
crop growth modeling and data assimilation, and imaging spectroscopy.
Francesco Vuolo received the Ph.D. degree in man-
agement of agricultural and forestry resources from
the University of Naples Federico II, Italy.
Since 2006 he has been remote sensing specialist
at the spin-off company Ariespace addressing the
use of multi-spectral and high-resolution E.O. data
for vegetation monitoring, evapotranspiration, and
irrigation water requirements estimation. Currently,
he is with the School of Geography,e University
of Southampton, U.K., where he is working on the
development of vegetation chlorophyll algorithms
for the future ESA Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-3 missions. He has been involved
in field campaigns for the validation of land-surface algorithms at fine and
medium resolution spatial scales.
Guido D’Urso is full Professor of agricultural hy-
draulics, irrigation management and remote sensing
at the University of Naples Federico II, Italy. He
received the Ph.D. degree from the Agricultural
University of Wageningen, The Netherlands. He has
coordinated several international research projects in
the field of remote sensing for water management,
as documented by more than 80 publications on
scientific journal, congress proceedings and special-
ized books. His research activities are focused on
three main areas: development of Earth Observation
interpretation techniques for water management and land surface processes;
distributed agro-hydrological models for water management and irrigation; and
in-situ and remote active microwave sensing of soil water content.