{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02401129943502825, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002824858757062147, 'mean_word_length': 5.242290748898679, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of hyperspectral indices for retrieval of canopy equivalent water thickness and gravimetric water content

ABSTRACT There are two main parameters describing the amount of water in vegetation: the gravimetric water content (GWC) and the equivalent water thickness (EWT). In this study, we investigated the applicability of hyperspectral water-sensitive indices from canopy spectra for estimating canopy EWT (CEWT) and GWC. First, the spectral reflectance’s response to different levels of canopy water content was analysed and a noticeable increase in the slope of the near-infrared (NIR) shoulder of the canopy spectrum was observed. Next, the correlation between the CEWT and various hyperspectral water-sensitive indices was investigated. It was found that all of the indices could retrieve the CEWT of winter wheat well, with the coefficients of determination (R2) all being higher than 0.80. Finally, the retrieval performance of these indices for canopy GWC was evaluated and no significant correlation was observed between canopy GWC and the water-sensitive indices except for the spectral ratio index in the NIR shoulder region (NSRI). These results showed that the traditional water-sensitive vegetation indices are more sensitive to CEWT than to GWC, especially when the LAI is not highly correlated with the GWC, and that the NSRI is a potential vegetation index for use in the retrieval of GWC.