This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING
RADARSAT-2 Polarimetric SAR Response to Crop
Biomass for Agricultural Production Monitoring
Grant Wiseman, Heather McNairn, Saeid Homayouni, Member, IEEE, and Jiali Shang, Member, IEEE
Abstract—Agricultural production monitoring plays a key role in
a variety of economic and environmental practices including crop
yield forecasting, identifying risk of disease and application of
chemicals. Remote sensing has the potential to provide accurate
crop condition information across large areas and has the ability to
deliver information products in a timely within-season manner.
Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) frequencies are unaffected by most
atmospheric conditions, making use of this technology of interest to
crop monitoring. In this study, RADARSAT-2 polarimetric SAR
responses of 21 parameters are compared with dry biomass of
canola, corn, soybean, and spring wheat crops over a 6-week period
for a site in western Canada. Dry biomass was targeted as this
variable is a strong predictor of crop productivity. During the
period of biomass accumulation, significant correlations with dry
biomass were observed for most SAR parameters, for corn, canola,
and soybeans. These findings are of interest as they could be used to
target fungicide applications (canola) and to determine silage yields
and resistance to disease (corn). For spring wheat, linear cross
polarization and circular cross polarization backscatter, volume
scattering and pedestal height were able to detect when wheat
entered the milking stage which could prove useful as an indicator
for the timing of spring wheat harvest. This study demonstrates that
polarimetric SAR responds to accumulation of dry biomass, but as
well that several radar parameters can uniquely identify changes in
crop structure and phenology.
Index Terms—Agricultural crop monitoring, crop disease risk,
dry biomass, polarimetric SAR backscatter, synthetic aperture
radar (SAR).
I. INTRODUCTION
C ROP forecasting is the science of predicting crop yields
and production before the harvest actually takes place.
Crop yield is a critical indicator for national food security, food
trade, and enables producers with beneficial marketing strategies
[1]. Regional yield forecasting assists marketing agencies and
commodity brokers in management plans to maximize sales
opportunities [2]. Many commercial institutions have a direct
Manuscript received November 14, 2013; revised March 24, 2014; accepted
April 17, 2014. This work was supported in part by the Canadian Space Agency
Government Related Initiatives Program (GRIP), in part by NASA, and in part by
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
G. Wiseman was with the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Winnipeg, MB
R3C 3G7, Canada. He is now with Stantec Consulting Ltd., Winnipeg, MB R3C
3R6, Canada (e-mail: grant.wiseman@stantec.com).
H. McNairn and J. Shang are with the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,
Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6, Canada (e-mail: heather.mcairn@agr.gc.ca; jiali.
shang@agr.gc.ca).
S. Homayouni was with the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON
K1A 0C6, Canada. He is now with the Department of Geography, University of
Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada (e-mail: saeid.homayouni@uOttawa.ca).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JSTARS.2014.2322311
1939-1404 © 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
interest in the predicted volume of crop harvest including
financial institutions that require indicators of the future market
place. The economic impact that yield risk information plays in
calculating crop insurance premium rates and contracts is sub-
stantial [3]. The manufacturing sector also requires accurate crop
yields for implementing business plans on buying and selling
operations in advance as does the transportation industry for
allocation of resources to meet agricultural demands. In addition,
there is an ever increasing pressure on cropping systems to
meet world population demands and to do so in an environ-
mentally sustainable manner [4]. At the field scale, timely crop
forecasts can assist producers with in-season management
decisions on fertilization, irrigation, and pesticide use reduc-
ing the risk of disease [5] while maximizing crop yields and
minimizing water quality degradation. Crop forecasts also
influence agri-environmental policy decisions with predicting
soil erosion, leaching of agrichemicals, and the effects of
climatic change [6].
There are a number of inputs required to generate precise
forecasts from crop models including agrometerological infor-
mation; incoming solar radiation, maximum and minimum
temperatures, and rainfall frequency and amount [6], soil mois-
ture concentrations and crop phenology. The accuracy of crop
growth models largely relies on the quality of the input data [7].
Accurate crop production measurements are difficult to acquire
over large agricultural landscapes due to variability of rainfall
events [8], [9], distribution of daily heat units, assortment of
farming practices [10], and sheer size of required study areas [11]
resulting in an information gap.
Remote sensing has the potential to provide accurate crop
condition information across large areas [12] and has the ability
to deliver information products in a timely within-season manner
[13]. Earth observation data can be acquired over large areas at
regular intervals and therefore provide crop monitoring activities
with possible spatial extension [14]. Above ground dry biomass
is a strong indicator of crop productivity under the general
assumption the larger a plant is the greater the productivity from
that plant [4]. Thus, monitoring dry biomass is of particular
interest.
The impact of crop biomass on scattering, attenuation, and
emission of electromagnetic energy is complex and varies with
crop type and development stage. Previous studies have utilized
different wavelength regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Strategies have included exploitation of emitted thermal energy
[15], [16], optical reflectance to estimate fractional vegetation
cover [17], indices calculated from hyperspectral sensors [18],
[19], and red and near-infrared channels to derive normalized
difference vegetation index (NDVI) [20], [21]. Satellite optical
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING
data have also been used with radiation use efficiency models to
estimate above ground dry biomass, in order to predict crop
productivity [4]. However, for those approaches, which rely on
reflected energy in visible and infrared wavelengths, application
of these methods is limited to near cloud free acquisitions and at
these shorter wavelengths, responses are most representative of
upper crop canopy conditions [22].
In contrast, microwave sensors record emitted (passive) or
scattered (active) energy at much longer wavelengths. These lower
frequencies are unaffected by most atmospheric conditions mak-
ing use of this technology of interest for crop monitoring. The
dielectric of a target determines the magnitude of emitted and
scattered microwave energy and thus these sensors can detect
contrast among vegetation with varying dielectric properties
[23]. For active sensors [synthetic aperture radars (SARs)], the
angular scattering pattern is primarily governed by the structure
of the target. Given that different vegetation exhibit varying
canopy structures, SARs can be used to identify crop types [12].
Active systems propagate microwave energy toward the target
and subsequently record the magnitude and phase of the energy
scatter back to the sensor. Due to this two way interaction of
microwaves with the target, multiple scattering events within a
vegetation canopy typically occur.
These active sensors are also highly sensitive to soil conditions
including surface roughness [24], [25] and soil moisture content
[26]. In reference to agriculture targets, significant changes in
surface roughness are primarily associated with farming activi-
ties (tillage, seedbed preparation, and seeding) and weathering
effects due to wind and water erosion [27]. Once fields are seeded
and the crop canopy begins to develop, changes in surface
roughness are minimal. Soil moisture continues to vary in
response to rain events and uptake of soil water by growing
vegetation. The contribution of soil moisture to microwave
response when a crop canopy is present is variable and depends
upon sensor configuration (primarily frequency and incidence
angle) and characteristics of the canopy (plant structure, orien-
tation, total biomass, canopy water content, and planting
density).
There has been some previous assessment of active C-Band to
identify and monitor crop productivity. At early growth stages
[leaf area index (LAI) less than 1.0], soil moisture still had a
significant contribution to scattering from corn and soybean
fields [28]. However, as the canopy developed and LAI increased
above 1.0, scattering of C-Band microwaves was only minimally
affected by soil moisture. After LAI reached 3.0, 90% of the
scattering originated from the canopy. Likewise, the sensitivity
of C-Band to soil moisture and surface roughness for individual
agricultural fields was minimal under a full crop canopy [29].
The same study found C-HV effective for estimating vegetation
biomass of herbaceous crops and C-Band co-polarization verti-
cal (VV) was able to separate wide-leaf verses narrow-leaf crops
at low incident angles (23 ) [29]. Multitemporal C-Band data
have been used to derive crop growth biomass of soybeans but
few studies have incorporated fully polarimetric parameters [30].
McNairn et al. [31] investigated polarimetric parameters, obtain-
ing significant correlations among C-Band HV backscatter,
entropy and volume scattering, and corn and soybean LAI. For
corn, soybeans and spring wheat [32] found RADARSAT-2
Pauli-basis decomposition volume ( ) and double
bounce co-polarization horizontal-vertical (HH-VV) responses
were good indicators of crop growth development. Correlations
were low during emergence but progressively become greater as
plants developed. Backscatter then plateaued as crops matured
and declined as plants senesced. HV backscatter has been
effective for monitoring crop conditions especially at low inci-
dent angles where changes in vegetation structure and growth
were detectable [33]. Backscatter was a reliable source for
tracking grain growth stages jointing and heading and leaf
development and reproduction for corn crops. The C-Band
like-polarization ratio (HH/VV) channel at a-23° incident angle
has been shown to positively relate to wheat biomass throughout
the growing season with the exception of the heading stage where
the HH/VV ratio dropped by 2 dB [34]. The C-Band HH/VV
ratio at a 40 incident angle was also closely correlated to wheat
biomass and did not have a drop in response during the heading
stage with an overall correlation of 0.87 at the increased incident
angle. C-Band HV and circular copolarization right (RR) back-
scatter have been used to discriminate the level of biomass for
colza and alfalfa crops [35].
The study presented here contributes significantly to this body
of published research as it investigates the sensitivity of C-Band
polarimetric parameters to dry biomass of four economically
important crops—canola, corn, soybeans, and wheat. The strong
correlation between above ground dry biomass and crop pro-
ductivity [4] and the potential contribution of SAR to production
monitoring are the motivations behind this investigation. Also,
explored are the variations in SAR responses to dry biomass due
to differences in crop phenology, structure, and planting char-
acteristics. Research was focused on dry biomass, and not wet
biomass, because of the high degree of correlation between crop
productivity\yield to dry biomass [36], [37] and from an agro-
nomic perspective, many crop models estimate dry biomass.
This investigation utilized an extensive data set of ground
measurements and RADARSAT-2 imagery acquired over a
region of southern Manitoba (Canada) in 2012. The reduced
contributions from the soil at C-Band [28] make sensors such as
RADARSAT-2 good candidates for biomass estimation. The
data covered a wide range of crop conditions, capturing
most crop development stages during active biomass accumula-
tion. Correlations between SAR responses and field sampled
dry biomass are presented. The analysis took advantage of
RADARSAT-2’s polarimetric capability, and reports on results
using linear and circular backscatter coefficients, several polari-
metric parameters, as well as parameters derived from the
Cloude–Pottier and the Freeman–Durden decompositions.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Study Area
The study site is located in the Red River Valley of southern
Manitoba (Canada), centered on the rural town of Elm Creek (49
N, 97 W) (Fig. 1). The landscape is predomi-
nantly flat resulting in poor drainage and high frequencies of
water-saturated soils or standing water. The southeast portion of
the study area is dominated by clay textured soils, whereas the
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
WISEMAN et al.: RADARSAT-2 POLARIMETRIC SAR RESPONSE TO CROP BIOMASS
Fig. 1. Map of the SMAPVEX12 field campaign. The red box defines the
campaign limits with the study fields indicated by the gray boxes.
northwest soils are mainly sand and loamy sand in texture.
Southern Manitoba’s climate is classified as subhumid to humid
continental with extreme yet common temperature variations
( to ) [38]. The majority of precipitation occurs in
summer with approximately 75% of the 50 cm of average annual
precipitation occurring from April to September. Widespread
flooding can occur if certain climatic conditions are triggered,
namely snow accumulation over winter throughout the Red
River Valley and warmer than average spring temperatures. The
major causes of crop failure in Manitoba from an insurance
perspective from 1966 to 2005 have been drought (35.4%),
excess moisture (36.9%), frost (10.6%), and hail (7.7%) [39].
B. SAR Data and Image Processing
RADARSAT-2 is equipped with a fully polarimetric SAR
operating at C-Band (5.3 GHz) with a wavelength of approxi-
mately 5.6 cm. The fine quad-polarization wide (FQW) mode
with 8 m nominal spatial resolution was selected for this study.
Twenty RADARSAT-2 images were acquired over the study
area from April 16 to July 31 and eight images during the 6-week
field campaign from June 7 to July 19, 2012 (Table I). The
calibrated polarimetric SAR data were provided in compressed
stokes matrix values for each slant range pixel. Preprocessing of
RADARSAT-2 data was achieved using the SAR Polarimetry
Workstation (SPW), an add-on module of PCI Geomatica. A
boxcar filter was applied to the single-look complex (SLC)
data to reduce speckle noise. Boxcar averaging adds N adjacent
samples, divides the sum by N, and then writes that value into the
Nth sample location and is suitable in homogeneous areas such as
large agricultural fields. Multiple frames of RADARSAT-2, in
the same orbit, were needed to cover the entire extent of the study
area. Frames were mosaicked resulting in a complete coverage of
the site for five dates.
3
RADARSAT-2 has an exact repeat orbit of 24 days. This
temporal frequency is inadequate for crop condition monitoring,
but with selectable beam modes more frequent relook is possible.
However, the amount of energy illuminating the target, and
received back to the antenna, is affected by range to the target and
angle of incidence. As well, the characteristics of scattering from
the target are angle dependent. Given these constraints, this
analysis limited selection to RADARSAT-2 beam modes which
were close in their angle of incidence. The difference in angle
between the selected FQW2 and FQW6 modes is less than 5 .
C. Field Selection and Ground Data Collection
Agricultural fields create radar scatter due to not only vegeta-
tion biomass but also surface roughness, soil moisture, and crop
residue [40]. The Soil Moisture Active Passive Validation
Experiment 2012 (SMAPVEX12) was primarily a campaign for
prelaunch calibration and validation for the NASA SMAP
satellite. Consequently, large fields were needed to accommo-
date the coarse spatial resolution characteristic of passive micro-
wave systems. As a result, sampled fields were large in size
( ) and homogeneous (single crop-type per field).
To obtain a representative sample of fields typical of western
Canada, fields were selected based on varying soil textures in
order to maximize ranges of soil moisture within the site. As well,
selection was representative of dominant crops seeded in this
region of Canada. A total of 45 fields were chosen with four
different crop types: canola-7, corn-8, soybean-17, and wheat-
13. One of the goals of SMAPVEX12 was to gather a large
volume of surface validation data in a short period of time to
ensure calibration parameters were as accurate as possible. For
each sample field, 16 soil moisture sampling points in two
transects of eight were arranged in a (10.5 ha)
format (Fig. 2). Of these, biomass samples were extracted at three
sites in each field (field sites 2, 11, and 14). Attempts were made
to resample each field for biomass about once per week. On
average, this led to five biomass sampling opportunities per field
during the course of the 6-week campaign, with over 600 crop
specimens collected. Each biomass sample was weighed wet,
dried for at least 48 h and then reweighed, providing wet and dry
biomass weights (g) as well as total plant water ( ). For the
sample collected from site 2, plants were separated by plant
organs and biomass was determined for each organ (i.e., leaves,
stems, and fruit). The phenological growth stage using the
Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt and Chemical
(BBCH) scale [41] of each sample was recorded. Field row
spacing, row direction, and row plant spacing (plants/m) were
determined for each field.
At each of the 16 sample sites, three soil moisture readings
were taken resulting in 48 moisture readings per field. Each of the
45 fields was visited 14 times over a 6-week span (June 7, 2012 to
July 19, 2012) providing over 30 000 soil moisture readings.
Surface soil moisture (0–6 cm) was measured using the Steven
Hydra probe and to calibrate these probe measurements, 630 soil
cores were taken from the 45 fields [42]. A 3-m surface roughness
profile was also collected at sites 1 and 2. A 1-m needle profiler
(moved twice to create a 3-m profile) was used. This instrument
consists of a digital camera mounted on a tripod. The ground
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
4 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING
TABLE I
RADARSAT-2 SLC IMAGE DATASETS ACQUIRED OVER ELM CREEK, MANITOBA
Fig. 2. Field sampling site locations for soil moisture and soil core samples
(1–16), surface roughness (1–2), and crop biomass (2, 11, and 14).
profile photographs were subsequently processed using a
MATLAB application to extract surface roughness parameters
such as root mean square (rms) height (s) and correlation length
(l). Measurements were taken in the look direction of the radar.
At both sites 1 and 2, five 3-m profiles were collected.
D. SAR Polarimetric Processing
A total of 21 channels were extracted from each of the SLC
SAR data sets. Parameters generated included linear (HH, HV,
and VV) and circular (RR, LL, and LR) backscatter intensities, as
well as polarimetric parameters believed to be sensitive to
volume scattering (pedestal height-PDH and total power-TPW).
In addition, decompositions using the approaches by Freeman-
Durden (surface-SUR, double bounce-DBB, and volume-VOL
scattering) and Cloude–Pottier (entropy-ENT, anisotropy-ANS,
and alpha angle-APH) were applied. The Freeman–Durden
decomposition models the covariance matrix as the contribution
of three scattering mechanisms: 1) vegetation scatter from
randomly oriented dipoles; 2) dihedral corner reflector; and
3) first-order Bragg surface scattering [43]. The Cloude–Pottier
decomposition uses eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the
coherency to compute ENT, indicates the level of randomness
found for each target, ANS, measures the amount of mixing
between the second and third scattering types and APH,
describes the scattering source for a given eigenvector [44],
[45]. The radar vegetation index-RVI has shown sensitivity to
vegetation condition [46] and thus this index was also generated.
There were an additional six ratio channels produced, three from
the linear polarizations (HH/VV, HV/HH, and HV/VV), one
from the Freeman–Durden decomposition (SUR/VOL), one
from the Cloude–Pottier decomposition (ENT/ANS) and lastly
the LR/LL ratio from the circular polarizations.
SAR responses were correlated with measured ground vari-
ables including soil moisture, surface roughness, and dried crop
biomass using all five dates of SAR acquisition. Correlations
were run separately by crop type with the number of samples in
the statistical analysis ranging from 64 to 210, depending on the
number of fields of each crop and how often fields were sampled.
Although many radar channels were generated, only those radar
responses which were thought to be more sensitive to multiple
and volume scattering events were used in the analysis of
biomass. Thus, radar parameters for which scattering is known
to be caused primarily by surface scattering (linear and circular
co-polarizations) were not evaluated for this purpose.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Statistical Correlation With Dry Biomass
Many C-Band parameters were significantly correlated to
dry biomass for canola, corn, and soybean crops. In Table II,
all correlation coefficients (r) are statistically significant with the
exception of three correlation results for wheat. Initially, there
was no expectation that the relationship between radar response
and biomass would be nonlinear and consequently first results in
Table II are a result of a simple linear model. The strongest
correlations were observed for corn; responses for wheat, while
for the most part significant, were weak. For canola and wheat,
more than 50% of the variance in SAR response was left
unexplained by the volume of dry biomass. For soybeans, about
half the variance in VOL scattering and PDH was explained by
dry biomass, whereas for corn, explained variance was much
higher (75% for volume VOL scattering and 63% for PDH).
When dry biomass was plotted against radar responses, in
many cases, a nonlinear trend was apparent. In particular, SAR
response tended to increase more rapidly earlier in the season as
biomass accumulation accelerated. Mid to late season, crop
development was more focused on seed and fruit development
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
WISEMAN et al.: RADARSAT-2 POLARIMETRIC SAR RESPONSE TO CROP BIOMASS
TABLE II
LINEAR AND NONLINEAR MODEL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (R) BETWEEN RADARSAT-2 POLARIMETRIC SAR RESPONSES
All results are significant at < except where indicated as not significant (ns).
and during these periods, a reduced rate of increase in SAR
response was visually observed. The exception was wheat, and
this observation was not unexpected given that many wheat fields
had already accumulated significant biomass prior to the first
RADARSAT-2 acquisition. Following from this observation, a
nonlinear (logarithmic) statistical model was evaluated for
canola, corn, and soybeans. As expected from interpretation of
the scatterplots, stronger correlations were produced using a
nonlinear model (Table II). Variation in dry biomass was highly
correlated with ENT for corn and canola (r values of 0.81 and
0.84, respectively), suggesting particularly in the early growth
period, accumulations of biomass increased randomness in
scattering within these canopies. For soybeans, the linear
cross-polarized backscatter (HV) was still most sensitive to
increases in biomass (r value of 0.81).
In many of the results presented in Table II, a large amount of
variance in radar response was left unaccounted for. Multiple
scattering within a crop canopy can include canopy–soil and
soil–canopy scattering events as well as direct microwave scat-
tering from the soil. The contribution of the soil to SAR response
depends on many variables related to both the sensor and the
target. At C-Band, in the presence of significant biomass scat-
tering contributions from the soil were expected to be minimal.
This expectation was confirmed by correlations performed using
all radar parameters and soil moisture as well as surface
roughness. Correlations were weak and for the most part,
statistically insignificant. Soil moisture on canola and corn fields
had the highest correlation with SUR (0.40 and 0.14) and on
soybeans with ANS (0.349). None of the volume scattering
parameters assessed in Table II, for sensitivity to biomass, had
significant correlations with soil moisture. The one exception
was wheat where HV backscatter produced significant correla-
tions, albeit weak (r value of 0.53). As roughness data were
gathered only once during the campaign, correlations were run
between roughness and SAR parameters for RADARSAT-2
dates close in time to roughness measurements. As with soil
moisture, SAR responses had little sensitivity to surface
5
AND CROP DRY BIOMASS ( )
roughness (either rms height or correlation length). The highest
correlations (June 3) were reported for TPW and rms (r value of
0.41). No significant results were reported for roughness corre-
lation length. These results confirm that neither soil moisture nor
surface roughness significantly affect C-Band SAR backscatter
with the biomass conditions present during SMAPVEX12. Thus,
SAR returns are largely a function of microwave interactions
within the crop canopy.
B. SAR Responses to Canola
The 2011 Census of Agriculture conducted by Statistics
Canada reported that a record 19.4 million acres of canola had
been planted in Canada, surpassing that of spring wheat for the
first time [48]. With expansion of canola acreages, the impor-
tance of this crop to global markets is clearly increasing. Canola
is a broadleaf plant with a very distinctive change in canopy
structure through the growing season. Upon emergence, the crop
develops a thick rosette of leaves close to the ground before
sending up a flowering stalk [49]. Maximum LAI is reached near
the beginning of flowering, but as seed development begins, LAI
declines with the loss of lower leaves [50].Yield is positively
correlated with maximum LAI.
With leaves of similar scale as RADARSAT-2’s C-Band
wavelength (5.6 cm), sensitivity to canola leaf development was
expected. Yet with the volume of dry biomass produced by this
crop (over at peak biomass), saturation of the C-Band
signal is possible. For canola fields, sensitivity of radar response
to increases in dry biomass beyond about was not
observed (Fig. 3). In Fig. 3, this is evident for both ENT (top) and
HV backscatter (center). Also evident is that beyond this biomass
threshold, for some SAR parameters (HV and LR backscatter,
VOL scattering, and PDH) response was primarily dictated by
changes in crop phenology (and thus structure), rather than
accumulation of biomass. In Fig. 3 (bottom) two distinct popula-
tions of HV backscatter response are noted. Lower backscatter
(close to ) was observed when fields were flowering
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
6 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING
Fig. 3. Scatter plot of SAR response to accumulation of dry biomass (
canola. Top graph plots entropy response for all canola fields. Centre graph plots
HV backscatter for all fields. Bottom graph plots HV backscatter from two
specific canola fields (124 and 125) and illustrates the difference in response
between flowering growth stages (61–67) and ripening (82–85).
(BBCH stages 61–67). However, once ripening began (stages
82–85) backscatter increased by approximately 5 dB. For a
canola plant at the beginning of ripening, pods are filled with
green seeds. When the plant reaches a BBCH stage of 85, 50% of
the canola pods are yellow and dry, and seeds within these pods
TABLE III
NONLINEAR (LOGARITHMIC) CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (R) BETWEEN RADARSAT-
2 RESPONSES AND CANOLA DRY BIOMASS ( ) WITH AND WITHOUT INCLUDING
FIELDS IN THE FLOWERING STAGE OF GROWTH
All correlations are statistically significant at < .
are black and hard. Outside of these four SAR parameters, the
distinction between these two growth stages is not obvious.
Flowering, which precedes ripening, caused a slight decrease
in response for these four SAR parameters. Increases in biomass
shift from the accumulation of leaf area to seed filling of the pod
cavities when plants began to ripen. As previously stated, SAR
responses (HV and LR backscatter, volume scattering, and
pedestal height) increased during ripening. Variations in planting
date, soil conditions, and plant varieties meant that during
SMAPVEX12 not all canola fields had reached this level of
maturity (flowering and ripening). For canola fields that were less
mature and had not yet reached the flowering stage, a decrease in
backscatter was not yet observed. When canola fields in the
flowering stage of development were removed from the analysis,
correlations increased substantially (Table III). This indicates
that SAR was sensitive to canola biomass accumulation during
vegetative growth stages, up to flowering.
These findings suggest that C-Band SAR may be able to
identify when canola crops are flowering and when crops are
transitioning to pod filling. Knowledge of when these stages are
occurring is of assistance in disease prevention. Sclerotinia stem
rot, a wide spread disease in canola, is passed onto the plant via
infected flower petals [47]. The source of sclerotium is mush-
rooms that are in the soil and whose development is favored by
wet soil and humid conditions. Risk of contamination by scler-
otinia is greatest when these wet conditions are present during the
flowering stage of the plant cycle. Spraying for maximum
protection should take place when the crop bloom is at 20%–
30%. The findings presented here are preliminary and further
research is needed to confirm the sensitivity of SAR response to
flowering. However, if this finding can be repeated, sensors like
RADARSAT-2 could be used to guide timing of the application
of chemicals to canola crops for maximum protection and
minimal environmental impact. Also, tracking soil moisture
levels just before and during flowering stages may be able to
) for
identify fields at risk to sclerotinia stem rot.
C. SAR Responses to Corn
Corn and soybeans remain important global crops for the
agriculture and agri-food sector. In Canada, acres of both crops
are steadily increasing with the largest increases occurring in the
western region of the country [48]. The increase in planted acres
is primarily a function of strong commodity prices, improve-
ments in plant breeding and improved climatic growing condi-
tions. In 2012, most producers in the SMAPVEX site had seeded
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
WISEMAN et al.: RADARSAT-2 POLARIMETRIC SAR RESPONSE TO CROP BIOMASS
TABLE IV
CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO CORN POPULATIONS WITH SIMILAR DRY BIOMASS WEIGHT
( ) AND PLANT PHENOLOGY STAGES BUT WITH DIFFERENT PLANT HEIGHTS
corn in the first 2 weeks of May. Corn development during the
campaign was primarily limited to leaf development and stem
elongation. Tasseling, flowering, and anthesis occurred only in
the final week of the campaign, where dry biomass accumulation
peaked at about .
As observed for canola, a nonlinear logarithmic function fits
SAR response to corn dry biomass better than a simple linear
function (Table II). SAR response increased substantially during
the very early vegetative growth stages as leaf area increased and
the canopy closed. The rate of increase in response reduced as
biomass accumulated. This observation was true for all SAR
parameters except VOL scattering and PDH, where higher
correlations were reported for the linear model.
At mid-season, when biomass was at its maximum, VOL and
PDH responses from corn separated into two groups: group A in
Table IV which includes fields 24, 53, and 54 and group B (fields
72, 83, and 93). Examining field data collected for these fields,
planting density, dry biomass weight, and phenology stages were
very similar between these two groups. The only substantial
difference noted was in plant height, where corn plants were on
average 26.5 cm higher for group A than group B. Total biomass
was comparable between these two groups, but the difference in
height suggests greater horizontal growth for group B and greater
vertical growth for group A. It is hypothesized that the differ-
ences in height and growth characteristics may be a function of
corn cultivar, but this cannot be confirmed as data on cultivar
planted were not collected. This separation was not apparent with
HV backscatter, and thus differences between these two groups
were not a function of the total intensity of scattering, but rather
the characteristics of the scattering. Less horizontal leaf growth
(group A) may suggest an opportunity for microwaves to interact
7
more within the canopy, increasing the contribution of VOL
scattering, and amount of depolarization (recorded by PDH). The
distinction between these two groups is of interest since typical-
ly, taller corn plants have higher silage yields and are more
resistant to disease as they allow for better air movement and
drier understory canopies [49]. Thus, the sensitivity of some
polarimetric parameters to differences in canopy height may be
useful in assessing productivity as well as risk of disease.
For each field, plant samples from site 2 had been separated
into leaves and stems to determine the weight of dry biomass for
each crop organ. To further investigate how crop structure may be
influencing some SAR responses, correlations were run sepa-
rately for corn leaves and stems (Table V). Simple regressions
produced coefficients (r values) close to or above 0.8 for both
leaves and stems ( ). Dry biomass for stems and leaves was
highly correlated ( ) and consequently when both were
used in a multiple linear model, correlations did not improve. Of
interest, however, were the beta coefficients (b) which defined the
contributions of leaves and stems to the multiple regression
models. In Table V, bold values provided the greatest contribu-
tion. For SAR parameters most responsive to volume scatter (HV
and LR backscatter, VOL scattering, and PDH), the largest
contribution originated from the corn stems, suggesting that
stems are an important component in multiple scattering events
and repolarization of incident microwaves. For ENT, the con-
tributions from leaves were most important indicating that greater
leaf development leads to increase in the degree of randomness in
scattering from the canopy. This explains why ENT has proven to
be sensitive to corn LAI [28]. Contributions from leaves and
stems were both important in determining the dominant source of
scattering, as measured by APH.
D. SAR Responses to Soybean
All SMAPVEX12 soybean fields were seeded by mid-May,
although seeding patterns varied among these fields with pro-
ducers double seeding rows on some fields. These differences in
seeding densities led to significant variability in dry biomass at
the end of the field campaign (from less than to greater
than ).
Dry soybean biomass was linearly correlated with all SAR
parameters (Table II). Although all linear correlations were
statistically significant, coefficients were weaker than that re-
ported for corn. This may be expected given the variances in
biomass among soybean fields. Four radar parameters (HV and
LR backscatter, VOL scattering, and PDH) had stronger correla-
tions when either a linear or nonlinear (logarithmic) model was
considered. In fact, the nonlinear correlations of soybean bio-
mass with these four parameters approximated the correlations
reported for corn.
For the majority of soybean fields, SAR responses continued
to increase through the growing season. Responses from fields 33
and 83 in Fig. 4 are typical of these fields. However, some notable
exceptions were observed. For a subset of fields, SAR responses
fell from the June 20 acquisition to the June 27 acquisition even
though biomass continued to accumulate (fields 14 and 103 in
Fig. 4). In comparing conditions between these two groups, the
number of seeds planted along the row was higher for some fields
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
8 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING
TABLE V
LINEAR SIMPLE AND MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (R) BETWEEN RADARSAT-2 POLARIMETRIC SAR RESPONSES
The beta coefficient (b) for leaves and stems derived from the multiple regression is also provided.
Fig. 4. Temporal pattern of HV backscatter (dB) for selected soybean fields.
(on average 19.9 plants/m) than others (on average 9.9 plants/m).
However, when differences in row spacing are accounted for,
planting density ( ) was similar. Fields where plant
spacing was closer were also slightly ahead in terms of crop
development (moving from first or second trifoliate on June 20 to
third–seventh trifoliate on June 27) than fields with wider plant
spacing (which moved from unifoliate on June 20 to second or
third trifoliate on June 27). When plant spacing was close (as with
fields 33 and 83), the nonlinear correlation between HV back-
scatter and biomass was stronger ( ) when compared
with wider spaced and less developmentally advanced fields
(fields 14 and 103) ( ). The decline in SAR response for
these wider spaced fields may be partially explained by a
significant soil dry down. On average, soil moisture fell 8%
from June 22 to June 27 although the magnitude of this change
varied with soil texture. Field 103, e.g., experienced a decrease in
soil moisture of 23%. As previously reported, when all fields
were considered soil moisture was not significantly correlated
with SAR response. However, the contribution of soil to SAR
scattering may be more important when soybean plants are more
AND DRIED CORN LEAVES AND STEMS
widely spaced and less advanced in growth. Too few data points
are available to statistically validate this hypothesis. Of note,
after the soybean canopy closed, radar response increased again
as biomass accumulated and presumably, soil influences were
reduced.
The observation that the pattern of SAR response over the
growing season may vary as a function of plant spacing is of
interest for yield modeling [51]. It was found that pods per plant
decreased with increased plant density but also reported pods per
acre increased with higher density resulting in higher yields.
Early in-season recognition of planting density could be a
valuable source of information in crop yield predictions. How-
ever, results from SMAPVEX12 also suggest that estimation of
dry biomass for soybeans may be difficult until the crop devel-
opment and canopy closure is sufficient enough to minimize soil
contributions. Indeed, previous research has reported weaker
correlations between LAI and radar response for soybeans,
relative to corn, and what has been reported here may offer
further explanation for these results [28].
E. SAR Responses to Spring Wheat
Although Canada’s most recent census reported that for the
first time canola acreage in the west exceeded that of wheat, this
crop remains a very important commodity for both domestic
consumption as well as export. The spring of 2012 experienced
record setting warm temperatures for southern Manitoba. Spring
wheat was planted between the third and fourth weeks of April
with crops well into leaf development, tillering, and stem elon-
gation when SMAPVEX12 began in early June. Spring wheat
experienced steady increases in dry biomass up until the booting
and heading stages (mid-campaign), with ripening not beginning
until the end of the campaign. Wheat biomass had lower corre-
lation with all SAR parameters when results are compared to the
other three crops (Table II). The previous work has indicated
a substantially lower correlation between SAR response and
wheat than SAR response and corn [52]. The strongest linear
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
WISEMAN et al.: RADARSAT-2 POLARIMETRIC SAR RESPONSE TO CROP BIOMASS
Fig. 5. Temporal pattern of HV backscatter (dB) for selected wheat fields.
correlation was with the circular polarization ratio LR/LL
( ) (Table IV). A nonlinear model did not improve
results, likely because SMAPVEX12 did not capture the earlier
growth stages of wheat, as it did with the other crops.
Some SAR parameters (HV and LR backscatter, VOL scat-
tering, and PDH) responded to changes in wheat crop phenology.
On June 20, the majority of wheat fields were booting and
responses for these four SAR parameters increased until heads
had fully emerged. Plants ranged from beginning of swelling of
flag leaf sheath to 80%–90% of inflorescence or head having
emerged from the flag leaf. The average increase in HV back-
scatter from June 3 (leaf development, tillering, and stem elon-
gation) to June 20 was 3.9 dB. As anthers formed HV backscatter
remained constant for some fields, decreasing on average only
about 0.2 dB. For others fields, (105 in Fig. 5), slightly larger
decreases of 1–1.5 dB were observed. Once wheat crops entered
the milking stage, HV backscatter remained steady. However, for
fields moving into dough stages, when grain is infilling, HV
backscatter increased significantly by about 5 dB (field 105 in
Fig. 5). As kernels of wheat plants develop in the dough stage,
phenological growth stage 83, the structure of grains change
from a liquid state form to a dough-like texture [53]. It is
theorized that the increase in backscatter during the dough stage
is due to kernels becoming denser in consistency and thus
influencing the SAR backscatter signal.
Other SAR parameters had little response to changes in wheat
phenology. ENT remained high (above 0.7) and constant
throughout, likely due to the presence of a significant canopy
even at the beginning of the campaign. APH increased by about
from June 3 to June 20 as booting occurs. Following booting,
APH remained close to , indicative of a dipole scattering due
to volume scattering from within the canopy.
The abrupt increase in SAR response at ripening signals that
the crop is soon ready for harvest. The increase in response of
HV, LR, VOL scattering, and PDH at the time of booting may
serve as an indicator for optimal timing of fungicide application.
Many diseases such as fusarium and septoria blight start early
in the growth cycle when wheat is in the flag leaf stage, the last
leaf before the head emerges. Results from this study are
quite preliminary, but the sensitivity of SAR responses to wheat
development suggests further investigation is warranted.
9
IV. SUMMARY
This study examined the relationship between C-Band
RADARSAT-2 polarimetric SAR data and dry crop biomass
from canola, corn, soybean, and spring wheat fields in Manitoba,
Canada. Five RADARSAT-2 mosaics were generated from Fine
Wide Quad-Pol datasets with steep (20 –25 ) incidence angles
and collected from June 3 to July 21, 2012. SAR parameters
studied included linear and circular backscatter coefficients,
linear copolarization and cross-polarization ratios, and polari-
metric variables (pedestal height and total power), as well as
Cloude–Pottier and Freeman–Durden decomposition param-
eters. Crop biomass samples were collected, as were measure-
ments of surface soil moisture and roughness.
Results demonstrated that SAR returns were largely a func-
tion of microwave interactions within the crop canopy, rather
than contributions from the soil when vegetation cover is
sufficient. Significant correlations with dry biomass were
observed for most SAR parameters for corn, canola, and
soybeans. SAR response tended to increase more rapidly earlier
in the season as biomass accumulation accelerated, leading
to stronger correlations with a nonlinear (logarithmic) model.
For corn and canola, the strongest correlations with dry biomass
were observed for entropy (r values of 0.81 and 0.84, respec-
tively), suggesting that early in the season accumulations
of biomass increased randomness in scattering within these
canopies. For soybeans, the linear cross-polarized backscatter
(HV) was most sensitive to increases in biomass (r value of 0.81).
For spring wheat, correlations were weak and these results
were attributed to the late start of RADARSAT-2 acquisitions,
where first images were acquired only after this crop had already
accumulated significant biomass.
Mid to late season, crop development was more focused on
seed and fruit development and during these periods, a reduced
rate of increase in SAR response was observed. It is at this point
of crop development where SAR returns became more respon-
sive to changes in growth stage rather than biomass accumula-
tion. This responsiveness may be helpful in farm management
decision-making, risk assessment, and yield estimation. For
canola HV and LR backscatter, volume scattering and pedestal
height reacted to flowering (slight decrease in response) and
ripening (significant increase in response). These findings are of
interest given that canola is most vulnerable to sclerotinia
infection at flowering and knowledge of when the crop is in
bloom can be used to target fungicide applications. For corn at
mid-season, when biomass maximums were reached, volume
scattering and pedestal height separated corn fields into two
classes based on height. Typically, taller corn plants have
higher silage yields and are more resistant to disease. SAR
scattering reacted differently to soybean fields, based upon
density of plant spacing. This observation is interesting since
number of pods is a function of plant density and is a determining
factor in yields.
Spring wheat was matured entering the tillering and stem
elongation growth stages at the beginning of the field campaign
and thus weaker correlations with dry biomass were found.
Nevertheless, RADARSAT-2 parameters HV and LR backscat-
ter, volume scattering and pedestal height were able to detect
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
10 IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING
when wheat entered the milking and dough stages. The ability to
identify this final crop stage is a good indicator for the timing of
spring wheat harvest.
This research makes a significant contribution to our under-
standing of SAR response to crop development. In particular, for
corn, canola, and soybeans, this study finds that several para-
meters are sensitive to dry biomass during the period of maxi-
mum accumulation, suggesting the possibility to use sensors like
RADARSAT-2 for biomass estimation. Equally important, once
peak biomass is reached and seed development and reproduction
begins, some C-Band responses detected changes in crop
phenology. This knowledge is useful not only in yield modeling,
but also in farm-level decision-making and risk assessment
associated with disease.
With such far reaching applications, further investigations are
required to confirm these observations. An increase in the
availability of data from SARs has come at an opportune time
as evidence of the sensitivity of microwave scattering to vegeta-
tion condition is accumulating. These technology and science
developments offer a significant opportunity to provide infor-
mation on crop production from space-based sensors, during a
period of increasing economic and environmental pressures on
the agriculture sector.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Dr. Tom Jackson and
Dr. Michael Cosh of USDA, Dr. Andreas Colliander and
Dr. Eni Njoku of NASA, Dr. Paul Bullock and RoTimi Ojo of
the University of Manitoba, Dr. Aaron Berg, Dr. Tracy
Rowlandson and Justin Adams of the University of Guelph,
Dr. Ramata Magagi of Sherbrooke University, AAFC regional
support staff, and all 75 team members of the SMAPVEX12 field
campaign.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Horie, M. Yajima, and H. Nakagawa, “Yield forecasting,” Agric. Syst.,
vol. 40, pp. 211–236, 1992.
[2] B. Qian, R. De Jong, R. Warren, A. Chipanshi, and H. Hill, “Statistical
spring wheat yield forecasting for the Canadian prairie provinces,” Agric.
Forest Meteorol., vol. 149, no. 6–7, pp. 1022–1031, 2009.
[3] B. K. Goodwin and A. P. Ker, “Nonparametric estimation of crop yield
distributions: Implications for rating group-risk crop insurance contracts,”
Amer. J. Agric. Econ., vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 139–153, 1998.
[4] J. Liu et al., “Estimating crop stresses, aboveground dry biomass and yield
of corn using multi-temporal optical data combined with a radiation use
efficiency model,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 114, pp. 1167–1177, 2010.
[5] K. J. Boote, J. W. Jones, and N. B. Pickering, “Potential uses and limitations
of crop models,” Agron. J., vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 704–716, 1996.
[6] G. Hoogenboom, “Contribution of agrometeorology to the simulation of
crop production and its applications,” Agric. Forest Meteorol., vol. 103,
no. 1–2, pp. 137–157, 2000.
[7] W. Terink et al., “The added value of high-resolution above coarse-
resolution remote sensing images in crop yield forecasting: A case study
in the Egyptian Nile Delta,” CGIAR Research Program on Climate
Change, Agriculture and Food Security, The Netherlands, Report Future-
Water 116, Tech. Rep., Dec. 2012.
[8] J. Maybank et al., “Drought as a natural disaster,” Atmos. Ocean, vol. 33,
no. 2, pp. 195–222, 1995.
[9] V. J. Boken, “Agricultural drought and its monitoring and prediction: Some
concepts,” in Monitoring and Predicting Agricultural Drought: A Global
Study. London, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005, pp. 3–10.
[10] J. W. Hansen and J. W. Jones, “Scaling-up crop models for climate
variability applications,” Agric. Syst., vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 43–72, Jul. 2000.
[11] A. C. Chipanshi, E. A. Ripley, and R. G. Lawford, “Large-scale simulation
of wheat yields in a semi-arid environment using a crop-growth model,”
Agric. Syst., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 57–66, 1999.
[12] H. McNairn, C. Champagne, J. Shang, D. Holmstrom, and G. Reichert,
“Integration of optical and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery for
delivering operational annual crop inventories,” ISPRS J. Photogramm.
Remote Sens., vol. 64, pp. 434–449, 2009.
[13] J. Shang, H. McNairn, C. Champagne, and X. Jiao, “Contribution of multi-
frequency, multi-sensor, and multi-temporal radar data to operational
annual crop mapping,” in Proc. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp.
(IGARSS), Boston, MA, USA, 2008, pp. 378–381.
[14] S. Moulin, A. Bondeau, and R. Delecolle, “Combining agricultural crop
models and satellite observations: From field to regional scales,” Int. J.
Remote Sens., vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1021–1036, 1998.
[15] J. Bonn and N. T. O’Neill, “Thermal infrared remote sensing of soils:
Evolution, trends and perspectives,” Remote Sen. Rev., vol. 7, no. 3–4,
pp. 281–302, 1993.
[16] W. W. Verstraeten, F. Veroustraete, C. J. van der Sande, I. Grootaers, and
J. Feyen, “Soil moisture retrieval using thermal inertia, determined with
visible and thermal spaceborne data, validated for European forests,”
Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 299–314, 2006.
[17] T. B. Carlson, R. R. Gillies, and T. J. Schmugge, “An interpretation of
methodologies for indirect measurement of soil water content,” Agric.
Forest Meteorol., vol. 77, no. 3–4, pp. 191–205, 1995.
[18] E. Pattey, I. B. Strachan, J. B. Boisvert, R. L. Desjardins, and
N. B. McLaughlin, “Detecting effects of nitrogen rate and weather on corn
growth using micrometeorological and hyperspectral reflectance measure-
ments,” Agric. Forest Meteorol., vol. 108, pp. 85–99, 2001.
[19] I. B. Strachan, E. Pattey, C. Salustro, and J. R. Miller, “Use of hyperspectral
remote sensing to estimate the gross photosynthesis of agricultural fields,”
Can. J. Remote Sens., vol. 34, pp. 333–341, 2008.
[20] R. R. Gillies, W. P. Kustas, and K. S. Humes, “A verification of the ‘triangle’
method for obtaining surface soil water content and energy fluxes from
remote measurements of the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)
and surface,” Int. J. Remote Sens., vol. 18, no. 15, pp. 3145–3166, 1997.
[21] J. N. Hird and G. J. McDermid, “Noise reduction of NDVI time series: An
empirical comparison of selected techniques,” Remote Sens. Environ.,
vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 248–258, 2009.
[22] Y. Kim, T. Jackson, R. Bindlish, H. Lee, and S. Hung, “Monitoring soybean
growth using L-, C-, and X-band scatterometer data,” Int. J. Remote Sens.,
vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 4069–4082, 2013a.
[23] C. L. Jones et al., “Plant biomass estimation using dielectric properties,” in
Proc. Amer. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. Ann. Int. Meet., Portland, OR, USA,
Jul. 9–12, 2006, pp. 4104–4118.
[24] M. Davidson et al., “On the characterization of agricultural soil roughness
for radar remote sensing studies,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.,
vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 6430–6440, Mar. 2000.
[25] J. Alvarez-Mozos, N. E. C. Verhoest, A. Larranaga, J. Casalı´, and
A. Gonzalez, “Influence of surface roughness spatial variability and tem-
poral dynamics on the retrieval of soil moisture from SAR observations,”
Sensors, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 463–489, 2009.
[26] H. McNairn and B. Brisco, “The application of C-band polarimetric SAR for
agriculture: A review,” Can. J. Remote Sens., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 525–542,
2004.
[27] A. Pacheco, H. McNairn, and A. Merzouki, “Evaluation TerraSar-X for the
identification of tillage occurrence over an agricultural area in Canada,” in
Proc. SPIE Remote Sens. Agric. Ecosyst. Hydrol. XII, Toulouse, France,
Sep. 2010, pp. 78240P-1–78240P-7.
[28] X. Jiao et al., “The sensitivity of RADARSAT-2 polarimetric SAR data to
corn and soybean leaf area index,” Can. J. Remote Sens., vol. 37, no. 1,
pp. 69–81, 2011.
[29] S. Paloscia, “A summary of experimental results to assess the contribution
of SAR for mapping vegetation biomass and soil moisture,” Can. J. Remote
Sens., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 246–261, 2002.
[30] J. P. Wigneron, P. Ferrazzoli, A. Olioso, P. Bertuzzi, and A. Chanzy,
“A simple approach to monitor crop biomass from C-band radar data,”
Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 69, pp. 179–188, 1999.
[31] H. McNairn, J. Shang, X. Jiao, and B. Deschamps, “Establishing crop
productivity using RADARSAT-2,” Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
Spat. Inf. Sci., vol. 39-B8, pp. 283–287, 2012.
[32] C. Liu, J. Shang, P. W. Vachon, and H. McNairn, “Multiyear crop
monitoring using polarimetric RADARSAT-2 data,” IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 2227–2240, Apr. 2013.
[33] M. S. Moran, J. F. Moreno, M. P. C. Mateo, D. F. de la Cruz, and
A. Montoro, “A RADARSAT-2 quad-polarized time series for monitoring
crop and soil conditions in Barrax, Spain,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
Sens., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1057–1070, Apr. 2012.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
WISEMAN et al.: RADARSAT-2 POLARIMETRIC SAR RESPONSE TO CROP BIOMASS
[34] F. Mattia et al., “Multitemporal C-band radar measurements on wheat
fields,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1551–1558,
Jul. 2003.
[35] P. Ferrazzoli, L. Guerriero, and G. Schiavon, “Experimental and model
investigation on radar classification capability,” IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 960–968, Mar. 1999.
[36] O. Kryvobok, “Estimation of the productivity parameters of wheat
crops using high resolution satellite data,” in Proc. Int. Arch.
Photogramm. Remote Sens., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000, vol. 33,
Part B7, pp. 717–722.
[37] L. Serrano, I. Filella, and J. Penuelas, “Remote sensing of biomass and yield
of winter wheat under different nitrogen supplies,” Crop Sci., vol. 40,
pp. 723–731, 2000.
[38] M. Kottek, J. Grieser, C. Beck, B. Rudolf, and F. Rubel, “World map of the
Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated,” Meteorol. Z., vol. 15,
pp. 259–263, 2006.
[39] D. Wilcox, “Manitoba not yielding to climate change?,” in Proc. Manitoba
Agronomists Conf., Winnipeg, MB, Dec. 2006, pp. 8–10.
[40] H. McNairn et al., “Identification of agricultural tillage practices from
C-band radar backscatter,” Can. J. Remote Sens., vol. 22, no. 2,
pp. 154–162, 1996.
[41] H. Bleiholder et al. (2001). Growth Stages of Mono-and Dicotyledonous
Plants—BBCH Monograph [Online]. Available: http://www.jki.bund.de/
fileadmin/dam_uploads/_veroeff/bbch/BBCH-Skala_englisch.pdf
[42] T. Rowlandson et al., “Evaluation of several calibration procedures
for a portable soil moisture sensor,” J. Hydrol., vol. 498, pp. 335–344,
2013.
[43] S. Freeman and S. L. Durden, “A three-component scattering model for
polarimetric SAR data,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 36, no. 3,
pp. 963–973, Mar. 1998.
[44] S. R. Cloude and E. Pottier, “A review of target decomposition theorems
in radar Polarimetry,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 34, no. 2,
pp. 498–518, Mar. 1996.
[45] S. R. Cloude and E. Pottier, “An entropy based classification scheme for
land applications of polarimetric SAR,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.,
vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 68–78, Jan. 1997.
[46] Y. Kim, T. Jackson, R. Bindlish, L. Hoonyol, and H. Sukyoung, “Radar
vegetation index for estimating the vegetation water content of rice and
soybean,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 564–568, Jul.
2012.
[47] T. K. Turkington and R. A. A. Morrall, “Use of petal infestation to
forecastsclerotinia rot of canola: The influence of inoculum variation
over the flowering period and crop density,” Phytopathology, vol. 83,
pp. 683–689, 1993.
[48] Agriculture, and Agri-Food Canada. (2013, May 10). Canada: Outlook for
Principal Field Crops [Online]. Available: http://www.agr.gc.ca/pol/mad-
dam/pubs/fco-ppc/pdf/fco-ppc_2013-05-21_eng.pdf
[49] University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2014, Mar. 3). Canola (Rapeseed)
[Online]. Available: http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/canola.
html
[50] Manitoba Corn Committee. (2010). Manitoba Corn Hybird Performance
Trials 2010 [Online]. Available: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/
specialcrops/bii01s11.html
[51] M. Epler and S. Staggenbrog, “Soybean yield and yield component response
to plant density in narrow row systems,” Crop Manage., vol. 7, pp. 2–6,
Sep. 2008.
[52] A. M. Smith et al., “Multipolarized radar for delineating within-field
variability in corn and wheat,” Can. J. Remote Sens., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 300–
313, 2006.
[53] P. D. Lancashire et al., “An uniform decimal code for growth stages of crops
and weeds,” Ann. Appl. Biol., vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 561–601, 1991.
Grant Wiseman was born in Winnipeg, Manitoba,
Canada, in 1976. He received the B.S. degree in
geography from the University of Winnipeg,
Winnipeg, Canada, in 2001, and the M.S. degree from
the Centre for Earth Observation Science, University
of Manitoba, Edmonton, Canada, in 2007.
From 2001 to 2006, he was a Remote Sensing
Analyst with Manitoba Conservation’s Remote
Sensing Centre, Winnipeg, Canada and more recently
with the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa,
Canada, from 2006 to 2013. Currently, he is working
as a Remote Sensing Scientist on a variety of oil and gas pipeline and hydroelec-
tricity transmission line projects with Stantec Consulting Ltd., Edmonton,
11
Canada. He possesses extensive acumen in geomatics having worked on a variety
of regional, national, and international projects with the Canadian International
Development Agency in Indonesia, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Uganda, and Paraguay.
His research interests include differential interferometric synthetic aperture radar,
object-based image analysis, and new high-resolution multispectral imagery.
Dr. Wiseman holds a Research Associate position with the Centre for Earth
Observation Science, University of Manitoba, was a President of the Manitoba
GIS Users Group from 2008 to 2010, and was awarded a Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada scholarship in 2001 and 2004.
Heather McNairn received the B.E.S. degree in
environmental studies from the University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, ON Canada, in 1987, the M.Sc.
degree in soil science from the University of Guelph,
Guelph, Canada, in 1991, and the Ph.D. degree in
geography from Université Laval, Quebec QC,
Canada, in 1999.
She is currently a Senior Research Scientist
with the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s (AAFC)
Science and Technology Branch, Ottawa, ON,
Canada. She has 25 years of research experience in
developing methods to monitor soils and crops using multispectral, hyperspectral,
and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) sensors. This experience has included the
analysis of multifrequency (X-, C-, and L-band), multipolarization, and fully
polarimetric SAR data acquired from ground-based scatterometers, airborne
SARs (CV-580 SAR, AIRSAR, and UAVSAR), and various satellite platforms
(ERS-1/2, SIR-C, RADARSAT-1/2, Envisat ASAR, TerraSAR-X, and ALOS
PALSAR). She has led numerous national and international research teams and
has authored 50 peer-reviewed scientific papers. Her research interests include the
development of near real-time retrieval and delivery of soil moisture map
products from SAR, for the agricultural sector.
Saeid Homayouni (M’05) received the B.S. degree in
surveying and geomatics engineering from the Uni-
versity of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran, in 1996, the M.Sc.
degree in remote sensing and geographic information
systems from Tarbiat Modaress University, Tehran,
Iran, in 1999, and the Ph.D. degree in signal and image
from Telecom of Paris, Paris, France, in 2006.
From 2006 to 2007, he has worked as a Postdoc-
toral Fellow in Signal and Image (LAPS) Laboratory,
University of Bordeaux, Talence, France. From 2008
to 2011, he has been with the Department of
Geomatics and Surveying, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran,
as an Assistant Professor, and then he has worked as a NSERC Research Fellow
with Earth Observation Research Team of Science and Technology Branch of
Agriculture Canada, in Ottawa. Since 2013, he has joined as an Assistant
Professor in RS and GIS with the Department of Geography of University of
Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. His research activities are mainly focused on optical and
SAR remote sensing for urban and agro-environmental applications.
Jiali Shang (M’12) received the B.Sc. degree in
physical geography from Beijing Normal University,
Beijing, China, in 1984, the M.A. degree in geography
from the University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada, in
1996, and Ph.D. degree in environmental studies from
the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada in
2005.
She started her career as an Assistant Researcher
with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing,
China. She also worked as a Geomatics Engineer for
the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa,
Canada. Since 2004, she has been working with the Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada (AAFC), Ottawa, ON, Canada. She is currently a Research Scientist with
AAFC and an Adjunct Professor with Nipissing University, North Bay, Canada.
She specializes in the application of geophysics and hyperspectral remote sensing
to mineralogical mapping and in optical and radar integration for agriculture
applications.ą