Modeling study reveals improved leaf area index retrieval in mountainous terrain using topographic correction models and machine learning, indicating higher accuracy for regional ecological...
Leaf Area Index (LAI) is an important biophysical parameter in studies of regional and global ecosystems. However, terrain-induced distortion of surface reflectance can reduce the reliability of vegetation indices (VIs) in characterizing the canopy structure, thereby introducing uncertainties in LAI retrieval. In this study, an LAI retrieval method for mountainous areas based on the combination of terrain-corrected VIs and the random forest algorithm was proposed. Typical topographic correction models (Cosine+C, SCS+C, and Statistical–Empirical) were applied to normalize surface reflectance, and the terrain-corrected normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and modified soil-adjusted vegetation index (MSAVI) were constructed accordingly. Then, random forest regression was used for LAI retrieval, and the proposed method was validated through comparisons of this LAI with the field observations and original VI-based methods. The results showed that topographic correction effectively reduced the radiometric distortions induced by topography, and the NDVISCSC-based retrieval method performed well under various terrain conditions (with R2 and RMSE of 0.927 and 0.151, respectively). In addition, to investigate the effects of different terrain factors and illumination conditions on LAI retrieval, methods based on the original and terrain-corrected VIs were compared for surfaces with different slopes and aspects. The results revealed that the terrain-corrected VIs can improve the performance of LAI retrieval in areas with terrain-induced reflectance distortion. Finally, the optimal method successfully estimated LAI in the study area. Therefore, the proposed LAI retrieval method for mountainous areas is an effective tool for extracting surface biophysical parameters, and can provide a reliable approach for regional ecological monitoring and evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: