The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Relationship Between Remotely-sensed Vegetation Indices, Canopy Attributes and Plant Physiological Processes: What Vegetation Indices Can and Cannot Tell Us About the Landscape
Open accessAbstract
Vegetation indices (VIs) are among the oldest tools in remote sensing studies. Although many variations exist, most of them ratio the reflection of light in the red and NIR sections of the spectrum to separate the landscape into water, soil, and vegetation. Theoretical analyses and field studies have shown that VIs are near-linearly related to photosynthetically active radiation absorbed by a plant canopy, and therefore to light-dependent physiological processes, such as photosynthesis, occurring in the upper canopy. Practical studies have used time-series VIs to measure primary production and evapotranspiration, but these are limited in accuracy to that of the data used in ground truthing or calibrating the models used. VIs are also used to estimate a wide variety of other canopy attributes that are used in Soil-Vegetation-Atmosphere Transfer (SVAT), Surface Energy Balance (SEB), and Global Climate Models (GCM). These attributes include fractional vegetation cover, leaf area index, roughness lengths for turbulent transfer, emissivity and albedo. However, VIs often exhibit only moderate, non-linear relationships to these canopy attributes, compromising the accuracy of the models. We use case studies to illustrate the use and misuse of VIs, and argue for using VIs most simply as a measurement of canopy light absorption rather than as a surrogate for detailed features of canopy architecture. Used this way, VIs are compatible with "Big Leaf" SVAT and GCMs that assume that canopy carbon and moisture fluxes have the same relative response to the environment as any single leaf, simplifying the task of modeling complex landscapes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): A Survey on Civil Applications and Key Research Challenges
Shakhatreh, H., Sawalmeh, A. H., Al-Fuqaha, A., Dou, Z., Almaita, E., Khalil, I., Othman, N. S., Khreishah, A., & Guizani, M. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2909530 · Cited by 2,529
Optical vegetation indices for monitoring terrestrial ecosystems globally
Zeng, Y., Hao, D., Huete, A., Dechant, B., Berry, J., Chen, J. M., Joiner, J., Frankenberg, C., Bond-Lamberty, B., Ryu, Y., et al. (2022) · Nature Reviews Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43017-022-00298-5 · Cited by 837
Self-citationReduced streamflow in water-stressed climates consistent with CO2 effects on vegetation
Ukkola, A. M., Prentice, I. C., Keenan, T. F., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Viney, N. R., Myneni, R. B., & Bi, J. (2016) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2831 · Cited by 359
Osuri, A. M., Gopal, A., Raman, T. R. S., DeFries, R., Cook-Patton, S. C., & Naeem, S. (2020) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab5f75 · Cited by 93
Metadata
- Authors
- Glenn, E. P., Huete, A. R., Nagler, P. L., & Nelson, S. G.
- Venue
- Sensors
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2008-03-28
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 2136-2160
- ISSN
- 1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1983523689
- Cited by
- 754
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Relationship Between Remotely-sensed Vegetation Indices, Canopy Attributes and Plant Physiological Processes: What Vegetation Indices Can and Cannot Tell Us About the Landscape. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/s8042136
- The paper
- Glenn, E. P., Huete, A. R., Nagler, P. L., & Nelson, S. G. (2008). Relationship Between Remotely-sensed Vegetation Indices, Canopy Attributes and Plant Physiological Processes: What Vegetation Indices Can and Cannot Tell Us About the Landscape. Sensors. https://doi.org/10.3390/s8042136
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.