int. j. remote sensing, 1999, vol. 20 , no. 5, 879± 894
Seasonal variation of leaf chlorophyll content of a temperate forest.
Inversion of the PROSPECT model
V. DEMAREZ, J. P. GASTELLU-ETCHEGORRY, E. MOUGIN,
G. MARTY, C. PROISY
Centre d’Etude Spatiale de la BIOspheÁre (UPS/ CNRS/ CNES),
18 Avenue Edouard, Belin BP 31055, Toulouse, France;
e-mail: [email protected]
à NE and V. LE DANTEC
E. DUFRE
Laboratoire d’Ecophysiologie Ve ge tale (CNRS URA2154), Universite de Paris
XI, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France
(Received 16 September 1997; in ® nal form 23 June 1998 )
This paper presents part of a 7-month ® eld and laboratory experiment
over the deciduous forest of Fontainebleau. Leaf visible and near infrared optical
properties of three tree species (oak, beech and hornbeam) were measured each
month between April and October 1996. We distinguished the cases of sun and
shade leaves, and also abaxial and adaxial leaf surfaces. Spectra were analyzed
with reference to leaf chlorophyll content and leaf mass per area. As expected, we
observed strong variations of leaf optical properties during the season, with
diVerences between sun and shade leaves and abaxial and adaxial surfaces.
We also investigated how leaf re¯ ectance and transmittance can provide
realistic information about the seasonal variation of leaf chlorophyll content. For
that, we used a leaf optical properties model: the PROSPECT model. Inversion
of this model with leaf spectra led to the seasonal variation of leaf chlorophyll
concentration (m g cmÕ 2 ) we compared with ground measurements. The analysis
of spectral data showed that leaf chlorophyll concentration increases strongly at
the beginning of the growing season (from April to May), remains stable during
several months (from June to August), and decreases strongly when leaves are
senescent (from September to October/ November). Chlorophyll concentration of
sun leaves tends to be always larger than that of shade leaves. Moreover, chlorophyll concentration depends on leaf species, with oak leaves having the largest
chlorophyll concentrations.
Abstract.
1.
Introduction
Biochemical components (chlorophyll, nitrogen, etc.) of forest canopies are among
essential parameters that control physiological processes. A global and seasonal
survey of these parameters is required for understanding forest functioning. In this
context, remote sensing can play a unique and essential role because of its capacity
to acquire synoptic information at diV erent time and space scales. The concept of
spectrometric remote sensing is built on the occurrence of spectral absorption features
due to biochemical contents that we want to estimate. It emerges that foliar
International Journal of Remote Sensing
ISSN 0143-1161 print/ ISSN 1366-5901 online Ñ 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http:// www.tandf.co.uk/ JNLS/ res.htm
http:// www.taylorandfrancis.com/ JNLS/ res.htm
880
V. Demarez et al.
re¯ ectance and transmittance are partly related to the concentration of biochemical
contents (Brakke et al. 1993, Fourty et al. 1996, Gastellu-Etchegorry et al. 1995,
Hosgood et al. 1995, Peterson et al. 1988). For example, most visible radiation (400±
700 nm) incident on fresh leaves is absorbed by leaf pigments. These are essentially
chlorophyll a and b with absorption peaks in the blue and red spectral regions,
which explains the usual green colour of leaves. Vogelmann and BjoÈrn (1986 ) showed
that absorption occured mainly in palisade cells where chloroplasts are numerous.
Other pigments such as carotenoids absorb also in the blue. Their in¯ uence becomes
visible during leaf senescence due to breakdown of chlorophylls (Sanger 1971). At
this stage, leaves are yellow. When the plant dies, brown pigments appear: the leaf
re¯ ectance and transmittance decrease regularly between 750 and 400 nm (Trigui
and Baldy 1983).
In the near-infrared domain (700± 1300 nm), pigments do not absorb and light is
scattered by refractive index discontinuities, (1) at the interface of hydrated cell walls
with intercellular air spaces, and (2) among cellular constituents (membranes versus
cytoplasm) (Gausman 1974, Gausman et al. 1974). Abundance of intercellular spaces
tends to increase leaf re¯ ectance and decrease leaf transmittance (Gausman et al.
1970, Boyer et al. 1988). Light scattering depends also on leaf mesophyll arrangements (palisade versus spongy tissue), leaf maturation, and physiological stresses
(water, salinity, etc.) that modify biochemical, physiological and structural components (Gausman et al. 1970, Belanger 1990).
In order to assess the potential of spectrometric and microwave remote sensing
for studying the dynamic and functioning of a temperate deciduous forest, the
European Space Agency (ESA) organized the EMAC (European Multisensors
Airborne Campaign) over the forest of Fontainebleau in 1994. The forest is located
near Paris and is managed by the French O ce for Forestry.
In this work, we focus on the seasonal trends of visible and near-infrared optical
properties of leaves and their relationships with leaf biochemical (chlorophyll ) and
morphological characteristics (thickness and LMA: leaf mass per area ). Re¯ ectance
and transmittance measurements were made with a spectrometer.
We report here part of the 7-month ® eld and laboratory experiment that took
place from April to October 1996, following the EMAC. Three tree species were
systematically sampled: oak, beech and hornbeam. We distinguished sun and shade
leaves because their optical properties are assumed to diV er markedly (Gausman
1984 ). After a brief analysis of leaf re¯ ectance and transmittance spectra, we present
a modelling approach for determining leaf chlorophyll concentration from leaf
spectrometric measurements. It relies on the inversion of the PROSPECT model
(Jacquemoud and Baret 1990).
2.
M aterials and method
2.1. Study area
Our study area is located within the Fontainebleau forest. This is a large deciduous forest (17 000 ha), mainly composed of oaks (Quercus petraea Liebl. and Q. robur
L.), beeches (Fagus sylvatica L.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), sometimes mixed
with birches (Betula sp.), and hornbeams (Carpinus betulus L.).
This site was selected within the frame of the French International Geosphere
and Biosphere Program because it captures major characteristics of a temperate
deciduous forest. On the whole, standing biomass ranges from 0 to 420 tons of dry
881
V ariation of leaf chlorophyll content of a temperate forest
material/ hectare and Leaf Area Index (LAI) ranges from 1 to 8 for the deciduous
trees (Le Dantec 1995).
2.2. Field measurements
Many measurements were performed during the EMAC (1994): 3000 samples
( leaf, branches, etc.) within 51 forest stands were collected for assessing leaf characteristics such as LMA and chlorophyll concentration. In 1996, measurements were
carried out each month between April and October, to assess the seasonal variability
of leaf chlorophyll concentration, LMA and leaf thickness. For that, two test sites
were selected: an oak (C08 ) and a beech (H13 ) stand. C08 is a mature forest composed
of oaks at the dominant story and hornbeams at the dominated story. H13 is a dense
and homogeneous pole stand of beeches.
Our approach comprised two major steps: collection of leaves in the ® eld, and
spectrometric measurements on these leaves in laboratory. Sampling dates were
23 April, 10 May, 17 June, 18 July, 22 August, 30 September and 30 October. Table 1
shows the main structural characteristics of stands C08 and H13 . We randomly
selected ® ve trees per species in each stand. For each species (oak, beech and
hornbeam) we collected, with the help of a gun, 10 leaves at two canopy levels (top
and bottom). At the top, we selected outer leaves on long shoots which received a
maximum irradiance and can be considered as sun leaves. At the bottom, all leaves
were shaded according to the continuity of the canopy and the high LAI measured
in both stands (6.7 for C08 and 7.6 for H13 ). Only one ¯ ush was observed in both
stands for each species and consequently all leaves of one species are even-aged.
Each month, 60 leaves were collected for further spectrometric measurements.
This sample is called hereafter `sample A’. As soon as leaves were collected they were
kept in plastic bags at low temperature (# 5ß ), before being measured in the laboratory 24 h later.
Measurements of total chlorophyll concentration were conducted with a Minolta
SPAD-502 leaf chlorophyll meter (Markwell et al. 1995 ), calibrated against organic
extraction analysis (80% acetone, Porra et al. 1989). Empirical relationships (1)
between total leaf chlorophyll concentration and SPAD measurements (S ) for both
oaks (mature trees) and beeches (both mature trees and saplings) have the same
mathematical expression:
Chlorophyll (mg cmÕ
2
)= a Ö S / (bÐ
S)
(1)
Parameters a and b are ® tted, respectively, for oaks, beeches and total data set
(table 2).
Despite diV erences observed between parameters a and b for each species, the
predicted chlorophyll content with speci® c parameter is similar to the one predicted
Table 1. Age (year), dry matter (DM) by hectare, dominant height (Hd), basal area (G),
density of stems by hectare (D), diameter at breast height (DBh) and maximum values
of LAI (LAImax ) for oaks (C8 ) and beeches (H13 ) stands.
Age
DM
(thaÕ 1 )
Hd
(m)
G
(m2 haÕ
C08
200
409
39
33
521
197
H13
35
127
14
22
4954
60
1
D
) (stemhaÕ
1
)
DBh
(mm)
LAImax
4 (oaks)
2.7 (hornbeams)
7.6
882
V. Demarez et al.
Table 2. Coe cients (a, b ) of chlorophyll predictive equations (1) for oak and beech samples.
2
r correlation coe cient.
Species
Oak
Beech
Oak+ beech
a
b
r
2
Number of leaves sampled
70.97
62.81
63.92
89.47
81.68
82.85
0.96
0.94
0.94
20
50
70
by the `general’ relationship (diV erences are less than 10% within the range of
2
chlorophyll concentration considered in this study: 10± 90 mg cmÕ ). Consequently
the `general’ relationship (oak+beech) is assumed to provide a correct estimation of
leaf chlorophyll concentration for the diV erent species studied here.
Measurements of chlorophyll concentration on sample A could not be made for
other dates than August. Measurements of chlorophyll concentration, LMA and
thickness were realized each month, on another set of leaves called `sample B’. Five
trees per species were sampled: 20 leaves were collected (10 sun leaves and 10 shade
leaves) on each tree. For each leaf we made successively:
(i)
six chlorophyll measurements regularly distributed along the lamina using
SPAD;
(ii) one leaf area measurement using an area-meter (Delta-T devices);
(iii) at least two thickness measurements in the middle of the lamina between
two secondary veins, using an electronic calliper (resolution 0.01 mm);
(iv) ® nally the leaf was dried (oven, 65ß C) and weighed.
In April hornbeam leaves were not collected and as budburdst was just occurring
we simply mixed all top and bottom leaves of each species ( beech and oak). This
explains why hereafter the optical properties of sun and shade leaves in April are
identical both for oaks and beeches.
Moreover, hornbeam trees in C08 stand are only present in the dominated layer
and consequently no true sun leaves are present on these trees: analysis of hornbeam
spectra of top and low leaves revealed similar optical properties. Thus no distinction
was made between hornbeam leaves at diV erent levels.
2.3. L aboratory optical measurements
First, upper (adaxial ) and lower (abaxial ) surface transmittance and re¯ ectance
were measured on each leaf of `sample A’. Then we observed that leaf transmittance
did not depend on the leaf side which was illuminated (data not shown) so transmittance was measured while irradiating the abaxial surface only. In a ® rst approximation, we assumed that leaf re¯ ectance and transmittance could be described as
the sum of two components: a diV use component, supposed to be lambertian, and a
specular component, supposed to be mostly directional around the so-called specular
direction (Brakke 1994 ). Only diV use re¯ ectance and transmittance result from
interactions with mesophyll and thus are in¯ uenced by chlorophyll concentration.
Specular re¯ ectance is related to leaf surface interaction only. Our objective being
to study leaf chlorophyll content, we devised an experimental protocol intended to
measure diV use re¯ ectance and transmittance only. This relies on a single directional
measurement out of the angular cone where specular re¯ ection takes place.
V ariation of leaf chlorophyll content of a temperate forest
883
Leaf transmittance and re¯ ectance were measured with an Eotech² spectrometer
CCD 512. This instrument covers a spectral region between 400 and 900 nm. Its
spectral resolution is 1.1 nm. Leaves were placed in an horizontal sample holder in
the centre of a goniometer. Thus, the spectrometer viewed either the leaf or a BaSO4
standard re¯ ectance surface. In this con® guration, the area of the observed surface
2
on the leaf was 2 cm . The radiation source was a 150 W halogen collimated (Ô 7ß )
lamp. We used two diV erent illumination con® gurations for measuring leaf re¯ ectance
and transmittance. We measured leaf nadir re¯ ectance with the leaf being irradiated
with a 45ß incidence angle. This con® guration allowed us to avoid the in¯ uence of
leaf specular re¯ ectance. An isotropic irradiation scheme was employed for measuring
transmittance. This was made from a BaSO4 lambertian surface, illuminated with a
45ß incidence angle, which irradiated leaf abaxial surfaces.
We determined the relative accuracy of the instrumental con® guration for measuring leaf re¯ ectance and transmittance with the help of repetitive measurements. The
precision on measurements is about 2% in the visible and about 0.3% in the
near-infrared.
2.4. Modelling approach
Chlorophyll concentrations measured in the ® eld with the SPAD were compared
with those estimated with the PROSPECT model (Jacquemoud and Baret 1990)
used in a backward mode. This model simulates upward and downward hemispherical ¯ uxes that propagate within the leaf and exit the leaf. This is done assuming
that the leaf is a stack of N identical elementary layers separated by N ± 1 air spaces.
This concept was introduced by Allen et al. (1973) and Gaussman et al. (1970) with
the Void Area Index (VAI): VAI= N ± 1, which is an extension of the WillstaÈtter±
Stoll theory (WillstaÈtter and Stoll 1918). The number of layers mimics the scattering
processes within the leaf internal structure. It is independent of wavelength. Layers
are de® ned by their refractive index n (l) and an absorption coe cient K (l), which
is assumed to be a linear combination of the speci® c absorption coe cients K j (l) of
each absorbing material j , weighted by its concentration:
K (l)= ž
j
J
=1
K j (l) C j
(2)
The dimension of concentration is micrograms per unit area. Actually, the major
absorbing element in the 400± 900 nm spectral domain is chlorophyll. Thus, we have
K (l)# K ab (l) C ab
(3)
where the index ab is relative to chlorophylls a and b . With the assumption that
during the growing season parameters n (l) and K ab (l) do not depend on time and
on leaf species, leaf re¯ ectance and transmittance are only dependent on C ab and N .
Our objective was to determine C ab by inverting the PROSPECT model from our
spectral measurements. For that, we used the n (l) and K ab (l) parameters provided
by the PROSPECT model.
Model inversion consists in determining the input variables of the model that
minimize the distance between the measured and the simulated leaf optical properties
(Baret 1994). Let us consider a model M that relates the vector X of input variables
to the vector Y of output variables: Y = M ( X , Z ). Z represents complementary input
² Eotech is an E.T.A Optic spectrometer (Germany).
884
V. Demarez et al.
variables. Here, output variables are the leaf hemispherical re¯ ectance R (l) and
transmittance T (l), whereas input variables X are N and K (l). The inversion
procedure relies on the minimization of a merit function (e) that is a simple quadratic
sum of the residual between measured and simulated spectra:
e= ž
I
i
=
1
2
[Y i Õ M (X i , Z i )]
(4)
where I is the number of spectral measurements, Y i is the measured variable, i.e.
R (li ) and/ or T (li ), and M (X i, Z i ) is the variable modelled with the set of variables
(X i , Z i ).
The minimization procedure usually requires an iterative approach. This is ® rst
initiated with an approximate assessment of the parameter set X . Here, we used the
simplex algorithm (Press et al. 1992). We devised a two-step procedure, in order to
reduce computer time and to obtain more robust results (Jacquemoud 1992, Fourty
et al. 1996 ). In a ® rst step we inverted the PROSPECT model within the 800± 900 nm
spectral domain in order to compute the N parameter alone. All available wavelengths were used between 800 and 900 nm.
Once N was determined, we used wavelengths in the visible region in order to
retrieve chlorophyll concentration. In both cases the inversion was conducted on
leaf transmittance only because the latter proved to be less noisy than the re¯ ectance.
2.4.1. Comparison between SPAD and PROSPECT chlorophyll concentration on
`sample A’
Measurements of leaf optical properties and leaf chlorophyll concentration could
be measured simultaneously on the same leaves in August only. So, at this date,
actual comparison could be conducted between leaf chlorophyll concentration estimated with the PROSPECT model and SPAD chlorophyll measurements. Similarly,
we compared the structural parameter N derived from the PROSPECT inversion
with measurements of leaf thickness.
The inversion procedure for determining parameter N and chlorophyll concentration from the inversion of the PROSPECT model was applied to each leaf of the
® ve diV erent sets gathered in August.
2.4.2. Seasonal variation of N and chlorophyll concentration
Results concerning the parameter N and chlorophyll concentration obtained in
August were judged good enough to conduct PROSPECT inversion for each leaf of
sample A. So the inversion of all monthly leaf data sets was conducted with the twostep approach (like in August): once the parameter N was determined for each leaf,
the inversion of the PROSPECT model gave the leaf chlorophyll concentration at
each date between April and October. Finally, this radiometrically derived seasonal
variation of chlorophyll concentration was compared with that measured with the
SPAD spectrometer on sample B. Contrary to the comparison realised in August,
here the comparison is conducted on independent samples (A and B).
3.
Results and discussion
3.1. Analysis of leaf spectra
Spectra of oak leaves measured with the Eotech from April to October are
plotted on ® gure 1. They illustrate clearly the large seasonal variations of optical
properties due to leaf maturity. Leaf visible and near infrared spectral variations are
discussed hereafter in relation with the illumination context, the leaf side (i.e. abaxial
V ariation of leaf chlorophyll content of a temperate forest
885
Figure 1. Mean spectra of oak shade leaves in April, May, July and October (yellow and
brown leaf ). (a) Adaxial re¯ ectance. (b) Transmittance.
or adaxial ) and the leaf species. Our objective is to stress the most important trends
and to analyse them in relation with leaf characteristics such as chlorophyll concentration and leaf thickness.
3.1.1. V isible (400± 680 nm)
Visible spectra of all leaf species show strong and similar variations with time,
whatever the leaf side or the leaf illumination context (® gure 2). On average, during
the season, the maximum value (i.e. re¯ ectance and transmittance) is more than
twice the minimum value. For example, visible re¯ ectance of the adaxial surface of
oak leaves is about 4% in July and August and is about 13% in October. Variation
with time of visible re¯ ectances and transmittances is characterized by a decrease at
the beginning of the growing season, i.e. from April to June, a nearly constant value
from June to September and an increase in October. Major diV erences associated
with the leaf illumination context, the leaf surface and the leaf species are summarized
in ® gure 2.
Sun and shade leaves : visible re¯ ectances and transmittances of sun and shade
leaves, that belong to the same species and to the same leaf side, show a similar and
signi® cant variation with time during the season. Transmittances of sun leaves tend
to be smaller than those of shade leaves. The maximum diV erence of transmittance
between sun and shade leaves is reached in July/ August both for oak and beech.
These diV erences are signi® cant ( p = 0.1). For a given date, spectral diV erences
between species for each class of leaves (sun or shade) are generally inferior to the
precision of measurements, which means that spectral discrimination of species in
the visible seems impossible.
Abaxial and adaxial leaf surfaces: abaxial surfaces have systematically larger
visible re¯ ectances than adaxial leaf surfaces, whatever the leaf species and the leaf
illumination context are. On average, relative diV erences are around 50% for oak,
21% for beech and 35% for hornbeam, which is signi® cant ( p = 0.05). Re¯ ectances
of abaxial and adaxial surfaces undergo the same variations with time, with maxima
reached at the beginning and end of the season.
L eaf morphological characteristics: generally speaking, leaf transmittance
decreases when the quantity of intercepting leaf tissues (number of palisade cells,
intercellular spaces) and absorbing pigments (essentially chlorophyll and to a lesser
extent carotenoõÈ ds) increase. Leaf re¯ ectance increases if the quantity of intercepting
886
V. Demarez et al.
Figure 2. Mean visible (530± 680 nm) transmittance (Tra:
) and re¯ ectance (Ref ) of
abaxial (
) and adaxial (
) surfaces of oak, beech and hornbeam leaves
from April to October.
leaf tissue increases and if the quantity of absorbing leaf tissue decreases. This
explains why, at each date, leaves transmittances of each species decrease when LMA
and leaf thickness increase (table 3 and ® gure 3). This simply illustrates the fact that
denser and thicker leaves tend to have smaller transmittances. Thus, sun leaves have
smaller transmittances than shade leaves. Indeed, from May to August, the LMA of
sun leaves is systematically larger than that of shade leaves.
If we analyse the evolution of leaf re¯ ectance, we can note that LMA and
thickness do not seem to be the only in¯ uential morphological parameters in the
visible spectral domain. Indeed, leaf re¯ ectance decreases during the growing season,
V ariation of leaf chlorophyll content of a temperate forest
887
Table 3. Mean leaf mass per area (LMA, g mÕ 2 ) and thickness (th, mm) for oak, beech and
hornbeam from April to October. Standard deviations are between brackets.
May
June
July
August
LMA th
LMA th
Hornbeam
34 0.08
(7) (0.015)
91.6 0.22
(12.7) (0.01)
56.6 0.18
(9.7) (0.02)
75.3 0.13
(22.3) (0.03)
33.6 0.08
(3.9) (0.01)
37.3 0.095 46.1 0.1
40.5 0.1
32.7 0.1
(10.3) (0.01) (7.6) (0.01) (5) (0.02) (6.4) (0.01)
111 0.31
103 0.24
102 0.24 93.3 0.23
(15.3) (0.08) (17.2) (0.02) (14.4) (0.03) (5.8) (0.03)
63.6 0.2
64.7 0.17
64 0.19 61.2 0.16
(14.5) (0.03) (4.7) (0.02) (5.3) (0.03) (6.3) (0.02)
82.2 0.15
85 0.15 88.8 0.11 58.3 0.1
(20.6) (0.01) (16.4) (0.02) (12.5) (0.02) (12) (0.01)
36.3 0.09 42.6 0.1
44.1 0.16 35.5 0.13
(7) (0.02) (11) (0.01) (10.7) (0.03) (8.1) (0.02)
0.1
(0.02)
0.2
(0.04)
0.16
(0.02)
0.13
(0.01)
0.08
(0.01)
LMA th
October
Leaf species LMA th
41
(10)
Oak sun
59.5
(5.1)
Oak shade 41.8
(3.3)
Beech sun 56.7
(8.5)
Beech shade 33
(3.3)
LMA th
September
LMA th
Figure 3. Seasonal variation of mean visible transmittance of sun (
) and shade
(
) oak leaves, LMA of sun (Ð u Ð ) and shade (Ð { Ð ) oak leaves and thickness
of sun (
) and shade (Ð ± ) oak leaves from May to October.
while leaves tend to thicken. This means that while the quantity of intercepting leaf
tissue increases, the quantity of absorbing leaf pigment, i.e. chlorophyll, increases
even more. Thus, the proportion of absorbing material versus intercepting material
increases during the growing season. The leading role of leaf chlorophyll concentration in the visible domain is further stressed by the fact that in October when leaves
senesce and chlorophyll becomes degraded, both leaf re¯ ectance and leaf transmittance increase. This variation cannot be explained by leaf thickness as it does
not decrease signi® cantly.
The larger volume density of chloroplasts within palisade tissue (adaxial side),
compared with that of spongy tissue (abaxial side), combined with the fact that
spongy tissues give rise to more numerous scattering mechanisms, explains that leaf
abaxial surfaces have larger re¯ ectances than leaf adaxial surfaces (Gausman and
Allen 1973). The importance of the highly scattering structure of spongy cells is
888
V. Demarez et al.
underscored with the case of senescent leaves for which chlorophyll begins to break
down: abaxial surfaces have a markedly larger re¯ ectance than adaxial surfaces.
3.1.2. Near inf rared (780± 880 nm)
Similarly to visible spectra, near-infrared spectra of all leaf species show a strong
and similar variation with time, whatever the leaf side and whatever the leaf illumination context (® gure 4) are. On average, during the season, the maximum value (i.e.
re¯ ectance and transmittance) is around 35% larger than the minimum value. During
the ® rst stage of the growing season leaf transmittance decreases while leaf re¯ ectance
Figure 4. Mean near infrared transmittance (Tra:
) and re¯ ectance (Ref ) of abaxial
(
) and adaxial (
) surfaces of oak, beech and hornbeam leaves, from April
to October.
V ariation of leaf chlorophyll content of a temperate forest
889
increases. Then, these optical quantities stabilize. Finally, they decrease when leaves
become senescent. DiV erences associated with the leaf illumination context, the leaf
surface and the leaf species are summarized in ® gure 4.
Sun and shade leaves: in this spectral domain, re¯ ectances of sun leaves tend to
be larger than those of shade leaves, but these diV erences are not signi® cant. Similarly
to the visible, near-infrared transmittances of sun leaves are systematically smaller
than those of shade leaves. Maximum relative transmittance diV erence is reached in
May and June for oak (# 20%) and for beech (# 15%). These diV erences are
signi® cant ( p = 0.05).
Abaxial and adaxial leaf surfaces: contrary to the visible domain, leaf adaxial and
abaxial near-infrared re¯ ectances are never very diV erent, with relative diV erences
usually less than 10%.
L eaf morphological characteristics: comparison of thickness and LMA of oak,
beech and hornbeam leaves with associated leaf near-infrared re¯ ectances and transmittances shows that for any date between April and October larger values of leaf
thickness and LMA (table 3) imply smaller leaf transmittances and larger leaf
re¯ ectances. The only exception is the re¯ ectance and transmittance decrease in
October. We suspect that this may be due to erroneous measurements, probably
associated with some deterioration during the transport of leaves.
3.2. Inversion of the PROSPECT model
Finally, we investigated the capacity of the PROSPECT leaf optical properties
to provide valuable information about seasonal variations of leaf thickness and
chlorophyll content.
Structural parameter N: table 4 shows mean values of parameter N estimated for
August by inverting the PROSPECT model on the transmittance leaf spectra. These
results were compared with mean thickness values of oak, beech and hornbeam
leaves measured in August. We noted a good correlation (r= 0.98, CI (95%) =
[0.96 0.99]) between N and leaf thickness. The parameter N used in the PROSPECT
model is not a directly measurable physical quantity: it tends to be large when the
number of horizontal layers which constitute the leaf increases. This explains why
N increases when the leaf grows.
Chlorophyll concentration : ® gure 5 and table 5 show chlorophyll concentrations
measured with the SPAD instrument and those computed through the inversion of
the PROSPECT model. Correlation is quite good (r= 0.90, CI (95%) [0.83 0.95]),
2
with a root mean square error (rmse) equal to 7.34 mg cmÕ .
A detailed analysis revealed that chlorophyll concentration estimated
with PROSPECT for sun leaves is larger than for shade leaves similarly to SPAD
Table 4. Leaf thickness and parameter N , derived from the inversion of the PROSPECT
model, of oak, beech and hornbeam leaves, for the month of August. Standard
deviations are in brackets.
August 1996
Oak sun leaves
Oak shade leaves
Beech sun leaves
Beech shade leaves
Hornbeam
Thickness (mm)
0.24
0.17
0.15
0.10
0.10
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.01)
Parameter N (PROSPECT)
1.92
1.61
1.70
1.43
1.37
(0.05)
(0.11)
(0.12)
(0.10)
(0.09)
890
V. Demarez et al.
Figure 5. Chlorophyll concentrations measured with the SPAD instrument versus chlorophyll
concentrations estimated with the PROSPECT model.
Table 5. Mean chlorophyll concentration measured with the SPAD and derived from the
inversion of the PROSPECT model. Standard deviations are between brackets.
Chlorophyll concentration (m g cmÕ
August 1996
Oak sun leaves
Oak shade leaves
Beech sun leaves
Beech shade leaves
Hornbeam
2
)
SPAD measurement
PROSPECT inversion
71.9 (11)
49 (11)
43.5 (6)
42 (4)
37.4 (9)
74 (7.1)
68 (7.2)
58 (5.5)
48 (6)
36 (3)
measurements. Moreover chlorophyll estimated for oak sun leaves and hornbeam
leaves agreed with measurements. However chlorophyll estimation of oak shade
leaves and beech leaves (sun and shade) is systematically larger than measurements.
3.2.1. Seasonal variation of leaf parameter N and chlorophyll concentration
L eaf parameter N: monthly estimates of parameter N and its standard deviation
are shown on ® gure 6. Values of N ® t pretty well within the usual range ([1.5 2.5])
for dicotyledons (Jacquemoud et al. 1996). It appears that parameter N increases
between April and May when leaf tissue gets structured, does not vary so much till
September while leaf structure remains stable, and increases during the month of
October. This increase is simply linked to the relatively strong decrease of leaf near
infrared transmittance in October (® gure 4). This variation could be explained by
the fact that during this period leaves senesce, which implies that multiple scattering
increases due to the diminution of leaf water content (Jacquemoud et al. 1996 ). This
explanation disagrees with the unexplained fact that at the same period we found
that leaf near infrared re¯ ectance decreases.
Sun leaves have always a larger parameter N than shade leaves, because nearinfrared transmittances of sun leaves are systematically smaller than those of shade
leaves. This agrees with the fact that leaves of hornbeam trees, which make up the
understorey of C08 stand, have the lower parameter N . Moreover, we can note that
parameter N is larger for oak than for beech.
V ariation of leaf chlorophyll content of a temperate forest
891
Figure 6. PROSPECT-derived leaf parameter N of hornbeam leaves (Ð *Ð ), oak sun leaves
(
), oak shade leaves (
), beech sun leaves (
) and beech shade leaves
(
), between April and October. Standard deviations are also plotted.
Chlorophyll concentration : PROSPECT-derived chlorophyll concentrations are
shown in ® gure 7. It appears that the variation of chlorophyll concentration with
time is quite classical: strong increase during the ® rst phase of the growing season,
followed by a stability between June and September, and a strong decrease in
October. Two major results must be stressed:
(1) Sun leaves tend to always have larger chlorophyll concentration than shade
leaves. The only exception occurs in May for oak leaves. At this date, oak
Figure 7. PROSPECT-derived leaf chlorophyll concentration (m g cmÕ 2 ) of hornbeam leaves
(
), oak sun leaves (Ð Ð ), oak shade leaves (
), beech sun leaves (
) and
beech shade leaves (
), between April and October. Standard deviations are
also plotted.
892
V. Demarez et al.
sun and shade leaves have very similar chlorophyll concentration anyway.
Actually, this inversion of trend could be very well explained by the variability
of chlorophyll measurements (table 5).
(2) Chlorophyll concentration depends on leaf species. On average, oak leaves
have larger chlorophyll concentrations than beech leaves. For example,
2
between June and September mean values are 70 mg cmÕ
for oak and
2
52 mg cmÕ for beech. During that period leaf chlorophyll concentration of
2
hornbeam is much lower, around 38 mg cmÕ .
The comparison between the seasonal variation of the chlorophyll content estimated with PROSPECT and that measured with the SPAD spectrometer (® gure 8),
reveals that we have the same trends and the same dynamic of values. However we
can note that the predicted PROSPECT chlorophyll values are higher than those
measured for beech (sun and shade) and shade oak leaves, whereas for sun oak and
hornbeam leaves, estimated values are comparable to measurements.
4.
Concluding remarks
This work allowed us to study the seasonal variation of chlorophyll concentration
and optical properties of oak, beech and hornbeam leaves of a temperate deciduous
forest. Optical properties were assessed with the help of laboratory spectrometric
measurements conducted during one year, each month from April to October. We
showed that leaf optical properties and chlorophyll concentration depend a lot on
leaf species and sun illumination context (sun leaves versus shade leaves). Moreover,
re¯ ectance depends also, to a lesser extent, on the leaf side (adaxial surface versus
abaxial surface).
We compared the leaf chlorophyll concentrations measured with the SPAD
spectrometer and the leaf chlorophyll concentrations predicted with the PROSPECT
model. SPAD measurements and PROSPECT estimates were realized on the same
Figure 8. Measured leaf chlorophyll concentration (m g cmÕ 2 ) of hornbeam leaves (
), oak
sun leaves (Ð Ð ), oak shade leaves (
), beech sun leaves (
) and beech shade
leaves (
), between April and September. Standard deviations are also plotted.
V ariation of leaf chlorophyll content of a temperate forest
893
leaves, in August. This work revealed good agreement between measured and
predicted leaf chlorophyll concentrations for sun oak and hornbeam leaves. However,
for beech (sun and shade) and shade oak leaves, predicted chlorophyll values were
higher than the measured ones. The same trends were observed for the seasonal
chlorophyll variation. For the seasonal study, SPAD measurements and PROSPECT
estimations were realized on independent samples. The fact that similar results were
obtained with measurements realized on the same samples (August) and on independent samples (seasonal study) stresses the robustness of the sample method. DiV erences
observed between predicted and measured chlorophyll values could be explained by
the fact that (1) the spectral measurements may not be signi® cant enough to represent
the spectral response of the leaf, and/ or that (2) absorbing coe cients K ab proposed
by the PROSPECT model may not be well adapted to our leaf species. Concerning
the ® rst explanation we found two limitations: (1) it is likely that an integrating leaf
2
surface of 2 cm (contrary to SPAD measurements) is too small to take the heterogeneity of the spatial distribution of chlorophyll within the leaf into account, and (2)
our directional re¯ ectances and transmittances are not representative enough of
hemispherical optical properties.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the European Space Agency (ESA), the French National O ce
of Forestry (ONF), the French Ecosystem Committee `Foreà ts tempe re es’, the French
Space Center (CNES), the National Program of Remote Sensing (PNTS), and the
Program of Environment (SEAH) for their collaboration and support. We also thank
people from LEV for ® eld studies.
References
A llen, W . A ., G ausman, H. W., and Richardson, A. J., 1973, WillstaÈtter± Stoll theory of leaf
re¯ ectance evaluated by ray tracing. Applied Optics 12, 2448± 2453.
Baret, F., 1994, Use of re¯ ectance spectral variation to retrieve canopy biophysical characteristics. In Advances in Environmental Remote Sensing, edited by F. M. Danson and S. E.
Plummer (Chichester: Wiley), pp. 35± 51.
Belanger, M. J., 1990, A seasonal perspective of several leaf developmental characteristics as
related to the red edge of plant re¯ ectance, Ph.D. Thesis, York University, Ontario,
110 pp.
B oyer, M ., M iller, J ., B elanger, M ., H are, E. and Jiyou, W., 1988, Senescence and spectral
re¯ ectance in leaves of Northern Pin Oak (Quercus palustris Muenchh). Remote Sensing
of Environment, 25, 71± 87.
Brakke, T. W., 1994, Specular and diVuse components of radiation scattered by leaves.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology , 71, 283± 295.
B rakke, T . W ., W ergin, P . W ., E rbe, E. F., and Harnden, J. M., 1993, Seasonal variation
in the structure and red re¯ ectance of leaves from Yellow Poplar, Red Oak, and Red
Maple. Remote Sensing of Environment, 43, 115± 130.
F ourty, T ., B aret, F ., J acquemoud, S ., S chmuck, G., and V erdebout, J., 1996, Leaf optical
properties with explicite description of its biochemical composition: direct and inverse
problems. Remote Sensing of Environment, 56, 104± 117.
G astellu-E tchegorry, J . P ., Z agolski, F ., M ougin, E ., M arty, G., and G iordano, G.,
1995, An assessment of canopy chemistry with AVIRISÐ a case study in the Landes
forest, France. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 16, 487± 501.
G ausman, H. W., 1974, Leaf re¯ ectance of near-infrared. Photogramm etric Engineering and
Remote Sensing, 40, 183± 191.
G ausman, W., 1984, Evaluation of factors causing re¯ ectance diVerences between sun and
shade leaves. Remote Sensing of Environment, 15, 177± 181.
894
V ariation of leaf chlorophyll content of a temperate forest
G ausman, H. W., and A llen, W. A., 1973, Optical parameters of leaves of 30 plant species.
Plant Physiology , 72, 57± 62.
G ausman, H . W ., A llen, W . A ., C ardenas, R., and R ichardson, A. J., 1970, Relation of
light re¯ ectance to histological and physical evaluation of cotton leaf maturity. Applied
Optics 9, 545± 552.
G ausman, H . W ., A llen, W. A., and E scobar, D. E., 1974, Refractive index of plant cell
walls. Applied Optics, 13, 109± 111.
H osgood, B ., J acquemoud, S ., A ndreoli, G ., V erdebout, J ., P edrini, G., and S chmuck,
G., 1995, Leaf optical properties experiment (LOPEX 93), European Commission,
Joint Research Center, Institute For Remote Sensing Applications, Ispra (Italy), Report
EUR-16095-EN.
J acquemoud, S., 1992, Utilisation de la haute re solution spectrale pour l’e tude des couverts
ve ge taux: de veloppement d’un modeÁle de re ¯ ectance spectrale, TheÁse de doctorat de
l’Universite Paris VII, 92 pp.
J acquemoud, S., and B aret, F., 1990, PROSPECT: a model of leaf optical properties spectra.
Remote Sensing of Environment, 34, 75± 91.
J acquemoud, S ., U stin, S .L ., V erdebout, G ., S chmuck, G ., A ndreoli, G., and H osgood,
B., 1996, Estimating leaf biochemistry using the PROSPECT leaf optical properties
model. Remote Sensing of Environment, 56, 194± 202.
L e D antec, V., 1995, Utilisation de la te le de tection multispectrale en vue de mode liser le
bilan carbone d’un massif forestier, D.E.A d’Ecologie Ge ne rale et Production Ve ge tale,
Universite Paris Sud XI, 35 pp.
M arkwell, J ., O sterman, J. C., and M itchell, J. L., 1995, Calibration of the Minolta
SPAD-502 leaf chlorophyll meter. Photosynthesis Research , 46, 467± 472.
P eterson D . L ., A ber J . A ., M atson P . A ., C ard D . H ., S wanberg N ., W essman C., and
S panner M., 1988, Remote sensing of forest canopy and leaf biochemical contents.
Remote Sensing of Environment, 24, 85± 108.
P orra, R . J ., T hompson, W. A., and K riedman, P. E., 1989, Determination of accurate
extinction coe cients and simultaneous equations for assaying chlorophylls a and b
extracted with four diVerent solvents: veri® cation of the concentration of chlorophyll
standards by atomic absorption spectroscopy, Biochemical Biophysical Acta, 975,
384± 394.
P ress, W . H ., T eukolsky, S . A ., V etterling, W. T., and F lannery, B. P., 1992, Numerical
recipies in C. In T he Art of Scienti® ng Computing , 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
S anger, J. E., 1971, Quantitative investigation of leaf pigments from their inception in buds
through autumn coloration to decomposition in falling leaves. Ecology, 52, 1075± 1089.
T rigui, A., and B aldy, C., 1983, Evolution des proprie te s optiques des feuilles d’olivier
se nescentes ou malades, 2ieÁme Colloque International de Signatures d’objets en te le de tection, Bordeaux (France), 12-16 September , Les colloques de l’INRA 23:353:363.
V ogelmann, T. C., and B jörn, L. O., 1986, Plants as light traps. Physiological Plant, 68,
704± 708.
W illstätter, R., and S toll, A., 1918, Untersuchunger uÈ ber die Assimilation der KohlensaÈure
(Springer, Berlin, 1918).