On the reproducibility of field-measured reflectance factors in the context of vegetation studies

This paper describes a study aimed at quantifying uncertainty in field measurements of vegetation canopy hemispherical conical reflectance factors (HCRF). The use of field spectroradiometers is common for this purpose, but the reliability of such measurements is still in question. In this paper we demonstrate the impact of various measurement uncertainties on vegetation canopy HCRF, using a combined laboratory and field experiment employing three spectroradiometers of the same broad specification (GER 1500). The results show that all three instruments performed similarly in the laboratory when a stable radiance source was measured (NEΔL < 1 mW m−2 sr−1 nm−1 in the range of 400–1000 nm). In contrast, field-derived standard uncertainties (u = SD of 10 consecutive measurements of the same surface measured in ideal atmospheric conditions) significantly differed from the lab-based uncertainty characterisation for two targets: a control (75% Spectralon panel) and a cropped grassland surface. Results indicated that field measurements made by a single instrument of the vegetation surface were reproducible to within ± 0.015 HCRF and of the control surface to within ± 0.006 HCRF (400–1000 nm (± 1σ)). Field measurements made by all instruments of the vegetation surface were reproducible to within ± 0.019 HCRF and of the control surface to within ± 0.008 HCRF (400–1000 nm (± 1σ)). Statistical analysis revealed that even though the field conditions were carefully controlled and the absolute values of u were small, different instruments yielded significantly different reflectance values for the same target. The results also show that laboratory-derived uncertainty quantities do not present a useful means of quantifying all uncertainties in the field. The paper demonstrates a simple method for u characterisation, using internationally accepted terms, in field scenarios. This provides an experiment-specific measure of u that helps to put measurements in context and forms the basis for comparison with other studies.