the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Litter vs. Lens: Evaluating LAI from Litter Traps and Hemispherical Photos Across View Zenith Angles and Leaf Fall Phases
Abstract. Leaf area index (LAI) is a key parameter for modeling ecosystem productivity, climate interactions, and hydrological processes, as well as monitoring vegetation health. While satellite-based estimates provide insights into large-scale vegetation dynamics, ground-based methods, including digital hemispherical photography (DHP), are essential to generate and validate such products and offer a practical alternative for fine-scale assessments. However, it remains unclear if the DHP method enables to robustly track temporal LAI dynamics. Here, we evaluate DHP-derived LAI time series with litter trap (LT)-derived LAI in a temperate deciduous broad-leaved forest. First, by comparing DHP-derived LAI estimates with LT-derived LAI across varying view zenith angles ranging from 10° to 90°, we investigate how well both methods align. Using 15 sample locations, we found the highest average correlation across all locations of DHP- and LT-derived LAI (R2 =0.88) at a view zenith angle of 20°, indicating that litter traps represent a relatively narrow spatial footprint. Uncertainties for individual litter traps attributed to varying site conditions, such as tree stem density or canopy coverage. To overcome these uncertainties, we applied a site specific calibration using the litter traps and a generalized linear mixed model, which significantly increased correlation (R2 =0.97).
This study highlights the potential of DHP for tracking spatio-temporal LAI dynamics in decideous forests. Moreover, we demonstrate that integrating DHP and LT data, alongside a mixed-effects model, can enhance the site specific accuracy and applicability of LAI assessments.
- Preprint
(15865 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 20 Jul 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1496', Hongliang Fang, 26 May 2025
reply
The paper made a simple exercise to compare LAI obtained from digital hemispherical photography (DHP) and litter traps (LT) and proposed a linear model to adjust the original DHP measurements. I found the contribution limited for consideration.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The innovation of the manuscript is limited. This work closely follows another previous study by Liu et al. 2015b (doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0351). However, the previous paper simply performed empirical woody and clumping correction for deciduous broadleaf forest in order to match DHP LAI with litter trap observations. Such cite-specific adjustment is not generic.
The paper states that “it remains unclear if the DHP method enables to robustly track temporal LAI dynamics” (L4-5). Authors need to get familiar with current progress of using DHP for temporal LAI measurement. There are many related studies such as
(doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.08.005, doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.02.003) for seasonal crop LAI measurement with DHP. There are even many automatic DHP measurement studies:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108999
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.107944
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.14199
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
L19 Note that the “total intercepting area” is different from the flat area (L93). LAI is defined for the flat area, not intercepting area.
L100 For “the cumulative LAI”, do you mean “the cumulative LT LAI”?
L130-138. The LXG method is essentially different from the LX method is the estimation of clumping index (Fang, 2021; doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108374). The LXG CI is not a ratio of effective LAI to the true LAI.
Section 2.5
The generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was not clearly introduced. There are intermediate steps not fully presented. What and how are the inverse Gaussian distribution and a log link function applied?
L187. For Fig. 5 here, do you mean Fig. 4?
Section 3.1
The comparison of DHP and LT LAI was not clearly presented. It’s recommended to show a scatterplot to compare both DHP and LT LAI observations. Also show the effective LAI scatterplot and the clumping index derived from different view zenith angles.
L191-194 can be moved to section 3.1. I guess the Fig. 3 in L193 should be read as Fig. 4.
Section 3.3
I would suggest to show the slopes and intercepts (Eq. (1)) for different phases.
Section 4.1
I would not use the term “spatial footprint of LTs” since footprint is mostly used for LiDAR observation in this community. LT data are supposed to represent the whole sample plot.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1496-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Simon Lotz, 03 Jun 2025
reply
Dear Prof. Hongliang Fang,
Thank you for your valuable comments, particularly for highlighting additional literature and relevant citations.
We greatly appreciate your insights and will definitely address these points in the revised version of the paper.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1496-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Simon Lotz, 03 Jun 2025
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
101 | 34 | 8 | 143 | 6 | 6 |
- HTML: 101
- PDF: 34
- XML: 8
- Total: 143
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1