% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@MASTERSTHESIS{Krieger:864305,
author = {Krieger, Vera},
othercontributors = {Matveeva, Maria and Rascher, Uwe},
title = {{Q}uantitative evaluation of airborne maps of solar-induced
fluorescence to determine the performance of different
retrieval methods},
school = {Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn},
type = {Masterarbeit},
reportid = {FZJ-2019-04120},
pages = {106 p.},
year = {2018},
note = {Masterarbeit, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität
Bonn, 2018},
abstract = {When plants absorb light, not all energy is converted by
photosynthesis, but excessenergy is released as heat or
emitted as Solar-induced chlorophyll Fluorescence ( F ).This
signal, related to the photosynthetic efficiency of plants,
has been intensivelystudied and measured from ground level
up to global scale. However, retrieving ( F )from airborne
data is challenging because scattering effects and other
atmosphericinfluences must be taken into account here. A
common method of testing thereliability of a F product (in
this study airborne F maps) is the comparison to groundtruth
data where the atmosphere can be neglected. In this work
another possibilityof assessing the quality of the airborne
F maps is tested, which does not requireground reference
measurements. For this purpose we have developed so-called
’qualitycriteria’, which should help to find errors and
artifacts that have arisen during Fretrieval. This method
was used to test the quality of the airborne F maps of
2016campaign retrieved from iFLD and SFM.By applying the
quality criteria, clear differences in the performance of
two retrievalswere found. Although it was shown that both
retrievals performed well in F 760retrieval, even at places
with changes from vegetated to non-vegetated sites onpixel
scale, iFLD was more robust for retrieving correct absolute
values for F 760 andF 687 , while SFM performed less
accurate in this term, over- and underestimating Fvalues.
Furthermore, previously reported problems with image
pre-processing (decon-volution for correcting PSF) of SFM
became clear here. This was causing strongartifacts in F 687
retrievals from SFM. However, SFM proved to be the more
suitablemethod for identifying small differences on pixel
scale. Moreover, this algorithmdid not show systematic
variations over entire flight lines as observed by the
useof iFLD. The physically-based approach of atmospheric
correction used with SFMthus provided more interference-free
F maps than the semi-empirical correction
usingnon-fluorescent surfaces used in iFLD retrieval.
Testing F retrievals on vegetationunder different
illumination conditions showed the necessity to calculate F
yield forquantification of photosynthesis rates.The
application of the proposed quality features proved to be a
valuable tool forassessing the performance of F retrieval on
airborne maps. This is why we propose touse the quality
criteria even when sufficient ground references are
available, becauseeven if they do not replace ground-truth
data, they provide important additionalinformation about the
quality of the F product of the respective retrieval
method.},
cin = {IBG-2},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-2-20101118},
pnm = {582 - Plant Science (POF3-582)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-582},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)19},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/864305},
}