Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative assessment reveals EVI offers the most reliable LAI estimates in urban-agricultural settings, suggesting enhanced monitoring techniques.
Accurate estimation of Leaf Area Index (LAI) is essential for monitoring vegetation structure and ecosystem services in urban and peri-urban environments, particularly in small, heterogeneous patches typical of semi-arid cities. This study presents a comparative assessment of four empirical LAI estimation methods—NDVI-based, NDVI-advanced, SAVI-based, and EVI-based methods—applied to atmospherically corrected Sentinel-2 Level-2A imagery (10 m spatial resolution) over a 0.045 km2 urban–agricultural polygon in the Tashkent region, Uzbekistan. Multi-temporal observations acquired during the 2023 growing season (June–August) were used to examine intra-seasonal vegetation dynamics. In the absence of field-measured LAI, a Random Forest regression model was implemented as an inter-method consistency analysis to assess agreement among index-derived LAI estimates rather than to perform external validation. Statistical comparisons revealed highly systematic and practically significant differences between methods, with the EVI-based approach producing the highest and most dynamically responsive LAI values (mean LAI = 1.453) and demonstrating greater robustness to soil background and atmospheric effects. Mean LAI increased by 66.7% from June to August, reflecting irrigation-driven crop phenology in the semi-arid study area. While the results indicate that EVI provides the most reliable relative LAI estimates for small urban–agricultural patches, the absence of ground-truth data and the influence of mixed pixels at 10 m resolution remain key limitations. This study offers a transferable methodological framework for comparative LAI assessment in data-scarce urban environments and provides a basis for future integration with field measurements, higher-resolution imagery, and LiDAR-based 3D vegetation models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mamadaliev et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: