REMOTE SENS. ENVIRON.
35:161-173 (1991)
Potentials and Limits of Vegetation Indices for
LAI and APAR Assessment
F. Baret and G. Guyot
INRA Bioclimatologie, MonOCavet, France
M o s t vegetation indices (VI) combine informa-
tion contained in two spectral bands': red and
near-infrared. These indices are established in or-
der to minimize the effect of external factors on
spectral data and to derive canopy characteristics
such as leaf area index (LAI) and fraction of ab-
sorbed photosynthetic active radiation (P). The po-
tentials' and limits of different vegetation indices
are discussed in this paper using the normalized
difference (NDVI), perpendicular vegetation index
(PVI), soil adjusted vegetation index (SAW), and
transformed soil adjusted vegetation index (TSA VI).
The discussion is based on a sensitivity analysis in
which the effect of canopy geometry (LAI and leaf
inclination) and soil background are analyzed. The
calculation is performed on data derived from the
SAIL reflectance model. General semiempirical
models, describing the relations between VI and
LAI or P, are elaborated and used to derive the
relative equivalent noise (REN) for the determina-
tion of LAI and P. The performances of VIs are
discussed on the basis of the REN concept.
INTRODUCTION
The development of fimctional relations between
crop characteristics and remote spectral observa-
Address correspondence to F. Baret, INRA Bioclimatologie, BP
91, 84143 Montfavet Cedex, France.
Received June 1990; revised 12 November 1990.
0034-4257/91 / $3.50
©Elsevier Science Publishing Co. Inc., 1991
655 Aw~nue q[ the Americas, New York, NY 10010
tions has been paramount in many agriculture-
applied studies in recent years. To minimize the
variability due to external t~actors, multispectral
reflectance data have been transformed and com-
bined into various vegetation indices. The most
commonly used vegetation indices utilize the in-
formation contained in red and near-infrared
canopy reflectances or radiances. They are com-
bined in the form of ratios: ratio vegetation index
(RVI) (Pearson and Miller, 1972) or normalized
difference (NDVI) (Rouse et al., 1974), or in linear
combinations as the perpendicular vegetation in-
dex (PVI) (Richardson and Wiegand, 1977). These
indices have been found to be well correlated with
various vegetation variables including green
leaf area (Wiegand et al., 1974; Holben et al.,
1980; Asrar et al., 1984, 1985b; Hatfield et al.,
1985; Clevers, 1989), standing biomass (Tucker,
1979; Elvidge and Lyon, 1985), percent ground
cover, amount of photosynthetically active tissue
(Wiegand et al.), photosynthetic activity (Baret
and Olioso, 1989; Choudhury, 1987; Hatfield et al.,
1984; Sellers, 1985; 1987), and productivity (Asrar
et al., 1985a).
The green leaf area index (LAI) is a key
variable which is functionally linked to spectral
reflectance. Leaf area index is also a variable which
is frequently used by agronomists, crop physiolo-
gists, and crop modelers. A large number of rela-
tionships have been established between vegeta-
tion indices and LAI. Generally the vegetation
161
162 Baret and Guyot
indices approach a saturation level asymptotically
for LAI ranging from 2 to 6, depending on the
type of vegetation index used, the crop studied,
and experimental conditions (Wanjura and
Hatfield, 1987; Daughtry et al., 1980; Chance,
1981; Ahlrichs and Bauer, 1983; Best and Harlan,
1985). Most vegetation indices are dependent on
internal factors such as canopy geometry, leaf and
soil optical properties, or external factors such as
sun position and nebulosity to provide good esti-
mates of LAI.
The sensitivity of vegetation indices to canopy
geometry (leaf angle distribution function, row
orientation, and spacing) has been shown by
Chance (1981), Kollenkark et al. (1982), Aase et al.
(1984), Jackson et al. (1979), and Jackson (1986)
among others. Vegetation indices are also sensitive
to soil optical properties as shown by Kanemasu
(1974), Vanderbilt et al. (1981), Huete et al. (1985),
Huete (1987a), and Huete and Jackson (1987).
They are also affected by the sun position (Asrar
et al., 1985b; Brach et al., 1981; Huete, 1987b;
Shibayama et al., 1986) and the cloudiness (Holben
et al., 1986; Jackson et al., 1983). These results
suggest caution in using vegetation indices to esti-
mate LAI if the effects of these different factors
are not known.
Agronomists, among others, are interested in
photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) absorbed
by vegetation. The fraction absorbed PAR by the
canopy (P) can be linked experimentally to re-
flectance data (Daughtry et al., 1983; Gallo et al.,
1985; Hatfield et al., 1984; W i e g a n d and
Richardson, 1984) as has subsequently been shown
theoretically by Sellers (1985; 1987) and
Choudhury (1987), among others. Remotely sensed
P gives a more mechanistic and reliable way for
assessing crop biomass than LAI because the pho-
tosynthetic apparatus of a crop transforms the
absorbed PAR energy into dry matter and the sum
of absorbed PAR over time is a good estimator of
crop primary production (Wanjura and Hatfield,
1985; Weiser et al., 1986; Baret et al., 1989a). But
the relationship between vegetation indices and
APAR also depends on those factors which affect
the relationships between vegetation indices and
LAI. For this reason we shall examine the poten-
tials and the limits of the different vegetation
indices for assessing LAI and absorbed PAR by
considering the effects of different factors.
Table i. Parameters Used for the Calculation of the Differ-
ent Vegetation Indices. a
Sun zenith angle: 45 °
View angle: nadir viewing
Canopy geometry:
- - l e a f angle distribution function: ellipsoidal
- - a v e r a g e leaf angle: 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70 °
I L A I : 0.10, 0.20, 0.40, 0.80, 1.60, 3.20, 6.40, 12.80
Spectral Domain
650 nm (r) 850 nm (nir) PAR
Leaf reflectance 0.05 0.465 0.10
Leaf transmittance 0.02 0.490 0.05
Soil reflectance: 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35
(650 nm)
~The canopy reflectance is calculated with the SAIL model
(Verhoef, 1984). The leaf angle distribution function is assumed to be
ellipsoidal (Campbell, 1986; Wang and Jarvis, 1988). It is character-
ized by its average leaf angle (ALA) defined by the zenith angle of
the normal to the leaf surface.
The near-infrared reflectance of the soil is calculated with the
soil line equation: nirg = 1.20rg +0.04. The slope and the intercept
correspond to the median values of soil line data of the literature
(Baret et al., 1989b). Lower reflectance corresponds to dark and wet
soil and highest reflectance to that of a dry bright sand. The leaf
optical properties correspond to a leaf with a chlorophyll a and b
concentration of 50 /zg em -e and a structure parameter N = 1.5
which corresponds to most of plant leaves (Jacquemoud and Baret,
1990).
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
Model Simulation
The SAIL model (Verhoef, 1984; 1985) has been
used in this study to simulate and to analyze the
sensitivity of different vegetation indices to the
canopy and soil parameters: soil reflectance, leaf
optical properties, leaf inclination, leaf area index,
and so on (Table 1). This relatively simple model
gives a realistic and accurate estimate of the bidi-
rectional reflectance of homogeneous crop
canopies. It has been partially validated by differ-
ent authors (Badhwar et al., 1985; Goel and
Deering, 1985). In this study reflectances have
been simulated in red (r) and near-infrared (nir)
for the calculation of vegetation indices. All of the
possible combinations [9 (average leaf inclinations)
x 8 (LAI)×7 (soil reflectance)= 504 combina-
tions] of variables, incremented two at a time,
were computed.
Vegetation Indices Used in This Study
The most commonly used vegetation indices are
RVI and NDVI cited earlier. They combine red (r)
 Vegetation Indices for LAI and APAR Assessment 163

% J * " @ ~ ~ "l,Z,, ."/ d' qP IP

°'l' tJr.# L /,'/.. //...,,

ZIZt
.f "fir ,&///
~

I,'J.,' Y , /
/ . ,,

i
• O. l ~ / ~ ~ PVI

0 O.l 0.2 0.3 0.4 O.Z 0.3 0.4

RED REP'I~CT~CE

Jli "iP ¢ / / //..

/,: o/ .

lit °
0 t~ --SAVI 1 TSAV1

°o o., o.~ o.~ o,, °o oi~ o'.~ o'.~ o,,

RID RElO'LItCTANCit IRgD RITLItCTANCE
Figure 1. Graphical representation of different vegetation indices. The dashed lines correspond to canopies with different
soil backgrounds and the same LAI. The line, for which LAI = 0, is the soil line. The open circles correspond to the canopy
reflectance simulated with SAIL model using input data from Table 1 and the median value of ALA. The continuous lines
are the lines along which the different vegetation indices are constant. These indices are determined for each LAI and for
the median value of soil reflectance (0.20 in red).

and near-infrared (nir) reflectances or radiances. optical properties of soil background. For a given
RVI = r / n i r amount of vegetation, darker soil substrates result
in higher vegetation index values (Elvidge and
(Pearson and Miller, 1972), (1)
Lyon, 1985; Huete et al., 1985) (Fig. 1). To mini-
NDVI = ( n i r - r) / (nir + r) mize the effect of the soil background, Richardson
(Rouse et al., 1974), (2) and Wiegand (1977) have proposed the perpendic-
ular vegetation index (PVI). It represents the or-
NDVI = (RVI - 1 ) / ( R V I + 1). (3)
thogonal distance from a point corresponding to
These indices enhance the contrast between soil canopy reflectance to the soil line, in red-near-
and vegetation but minimize the effects of illumi- infrared space (Fig. 1). For a given soil, the red
nation conditions. However, they are sensitive to (rn) and near-infrared (nir~) reflectances are re-
164 Baret and Guyot
lated by the equation of the soil line:
nir,. = a ' r ~ + b.
The parameters a and b vary slightly among soils
(Huete et al., 1984). Findings on soil line parame-
ters determined in different locations confirms this
assertion, and shows that these parameters are not
independent and that they can be related by a
second-order polynomial (Baret et al., 1989b).
Moreover, as shown by Baret (1986), the soil line
concept is also valid for senescent vegetation,
which represents the real background of the active
green vegetation layer during a significant portion
of the growth cycle.
It is possible to express PVI as a linear combi-
nation of nir, and r,.:
1
P V I - ~ / e +- - l (nir - a ' r - b).
Experimental and theoretical investigations show
that PVI is also affected by the optical properties
of soil background: brighter soils result in higher
index values for a given quantity of incomplete
vegetation cover as shown in Figure 1 (Huete
et al., 1985; Huete, 1988; Major et al., 1990). The
points corresponding to the same canopy do not
migrate along lines parallel to the soil line when
the soil brightness is changing. For this reason
some new indices, which are less influenced by
the soil brightness have been proposed (Huete,
1988; 1989; Clevers, 1986; 1988; 1989; Baret et al.,
19891); Major et al., 1990). The simplest is pro-
posed by Clevers (1986; 1989), who introduced
the weighted difference vegetation index (WDVI),
which is similar to the greenness index of Kauth
and Thomas (1976) fin" the two-dimensional case
(red-near-infrared space):
WDVI = n i r - a ' r .
This index can also be related to the PVI by
combining Eqs. (5) and (6):
1
PVI - -~ - ( W D V I - b).
The information given by WDVI is not different
from that given by PVI. For this reason this index
will not be used in the comparison of the different
indices.
(4) The soil adjusted vegetation index (SAVI) pro-
posed by Huete (1988) is derived from the NDVI:
SAVI = ( n i r - r ) / ( n i r + r + L)(1 + L). (8)
The constant L is introduced in order to minimize
soil-brightness influences and to produce vegeta-
tion isolines more independent of the soil back-
ground (Fig. 1). It can vary from zero to infinity as
a function of the canopy density. If L = 0, SAVI is
equivalent to NDVI and if L tends towards infin-
ity, it is equivalent to PVI (the vegetation isolines
are parallel). For vegetation with intermediate
density the best adjustment is obtained for L = 0.5.
SAVI is an exact solution fi)r bare soil only when
the soil line parameters are a = 1 and b = 0. This
is not generally the case. As it is important, for a
(5) vegetation index, to be error-free for plant canopies
with very low densities, Baret et al. (1989b) pro-
posed the transformed soil adjusted vegetation
index (TSAVI). This index is a measure of the
angle between the soil line and the line which
joins the vegetation point and a point (S) behmg-
ing to the soil line, the abscissa of which is - X
(Fig. 1). The following equation is an improved
version of the initial definition given by Baret
et al. (1989b):
TSAVI = a ' ( n i r - a ' r - b)
/[.'nir+r-.h+ X'(1+.2)], (9)
where a and b are the parameters of the soil line
and X corresponds to the negative abscissa of the
point S. The value of X has been adjusted to
minimize soil effects (X = 0.08). TSAVI is multi-
plied by the parameter a to give a vegetation
index less dependent on soil parameters (a, b) for
high canopy density (nir >> r). TSAVI equals 0 for
bare soil and is close to 0.70 fi)r very dense
canopies. For a = 1 and b = 0, TSAVI is equiva-
lent to N DVI.
Tile indices discussed here can be classified
into two categories:
(7)
--indices characterized by a slope: RV1,
NDVI, SAVI, TSAVI;
--indices characterized by a distance: PVI,
WDVI, GVI;
 Vegetation Indices for LAI and APAR Assessment 165

0.4 0.8 SAVI and TSAVI are closely related as shown in

(b l i~ f Figure 2b.
0.3 0.6
...:..,
0.2 0.4
:i/?i:!:il - .~~.
.~,~.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VEGETATION
0.1
~,~:~:': 5 .
0.|
/ INDICES AND LEAF AREA INDEX (LAI)
0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5

NDVI SAVI General Semiempirical Model Relating

Vegetation Indices and LAI
0.8 O.S
(c) ..z .:t (d) ',~:,S Many studies have shown that vegetation indices
0.6 0.6 .,R..
reach a saturation level with increasing LAI values
jz:.-
0.4. 0.4
,f;"' and can be fitted to an exponential equation: NDVI
•...@i.,;;.,
(Hatfield et al., 1985; Baret and Olioso, 1989), PVI
0.2 ,~:¢ 5 . > 0,2
(Wiegand and Hatfield, 1988; Clevers, 1989,
0 through WDVI (see Eq. 7)), and TSAVI (Baret
0 0.5 0.2 0.4

NDVI PVI et al., 1989). The variation of a vegetation index

(VI), as a function of LAI, can be expressed by a
0.8 0.8, modified Beer's law:
roJ
0.6 .~'~. -
•...~, .. VI = V I ~ + (VIg - V I ~ ) ' e x p ( - K v , ' L A I ) , (10)
:=.,: ; .
<: 0.4 :i :.::i :' 0.4 L,~ ~!::!7;i[i::
where
0.2 o.= ,,:':7!:i:!I....

i
0 0
0 0.5
NDVI
Figure 2. Graphical determination of the mutual depen-
dency of NDVI, PVI, SAVI, and TSAVI. Each data point
corresponds to a VI value calculated for the canopy re-
flectance (simulated with SAIL with input variables front
Table 1). The Vls are expressed in decimal fractions.
Four of them, that is, NDVI, PVI, SAVI, and
TSAVI, are really not fnnctionally equivalent, al-
though, for certain values of the soil line and of
the parameters L and X, SAVI and TSAVI can
also be considered as distance vegetation indices.
To test the mutual independence of these four VIs,
they were calculated from the same data set (Ta-
ble 1). All possible pairs of VIs (six combinations)
were plotted (Fig. 2). Figures 2a, 2c, and 2e show
that PVI, SAVI, and TSAVI individually differ in
concept and contain different information than
NDVI, while Figure 2b shows that TSAVI and
SAVI are closely correlated. For this reason we
compare SAVI and TSAVI with NDVI in Figures
2c and 2e and with PVI in Figures 2d and 2£
Figures 2c and 2d show that SAVI and PVI give
similar information. TSAVI is not closely related to
NDVI and PVI (Figures 2e and 2f). Nevertheless,
VI~ = vegetation index corresponding to
' L
0 0,2 0.4 that of the bare soil,
PVl Vim = asymptotic value of VI when
LAI tends towards infinity (practically
this limit is always reached for LAI
greater than 8.0),
Kvl = eoeffleient which controls the slope
of the relationship (equivalent to an
extinction coefficient).
The Kvj parameter represents the relative in-
crease in VI due to an elementary increase in LAI.
It is called extinction coefficient by analogy to the
classical Beer's law where the extinction (or ab-
sorption) eoeMeient describes the relative varia-
tion of a diffuse mediunfs transmission when its
thickness is submitted to an elementary increase.
In the same way, the product Kvl. LAI is analog
to an optical thickness.
The parameters VI~ and Kvl depend on irra-
diance and view geometries and on leaf inclina-
tion. In this analysis the sun zenith angle and the
viewing geometries are fixed.
We have used, for each set of leaf inclinations
(average leaf inclination ALA), nonlinear fitting
techniques ( N e l d e r - M e a d simplex algorithm) to
obtain Kvx(ALA) and VI=(ALA) for data simulated
with SAIL model. VIg was taken as the average
166 Baret and Guyot

Table 2. Average Value of Vlg Calculated with Data of is not strongly affected by the leaf inclination:
Table 1
PVI~ and SAVI~ decrease slightly with the leaf
VI VI~ StandardDeviation inclination, whereas NDVI~ increases and TSAVI~
NDVI 0.193 0.0646 remains practically constant. The computed values
PVI 0.000 0.0000 of K vi and VI~ are in good agreement with exper-
SAVI 0.122 0.0229
TSAVI 0.000 0,0000 imental results obtained on wheat (Asrar et al.,
1984), maize, and soybean (Baret, 1990).
VIs computed with the simplified model
value (Table 2) calculated from the input data (equation 11) are compared to those computed
displayed in Table 1. The resulting values of Kvi with SAIL model in Figure 4. In the simplified
and VI= are presented on Figure 3. This figure model the adjusted values of KvI(ALA) and
shows that K w decreases when ALA increases. VI~(ALA) are used. For VIg fixed, the indices,
The curves corresponding to the different vegeta- which are significantly affected by the soil back-
tion indices have, practically, the same shape. VI~ ground, present a larger scattering than the in-

Figure 3. Variation of the extinction coefficient (Kvl) and of the infinite value of vegetation
index (VI~) as a function of the average leaf inclination (ALA).

1.6 l
NDVI
NDVI
1.4
t~
0.8 SAVI
1.2
z TSAVI
1 Z 0.6

Z
0.8 ...........................................
0.4 PVI
Z 0.6
>
t~ 0.4 0.2 t i ,i

30 40 50 60 70 30 40 50 60 70

AI~
NDVI PVI
0.4

( a ) ~ 0.3
b~

0.5 s_
0.2

0.1

i
0
0 0,5 0 0.2 0.4
SAIL SAIL

SAVI TSAVI

r~
M Figure 4. Comparison of VI data
0.5 0.5 calculated with SAIL model and
with simplified model (dots). The
solid line is the first bisector. As VI~
has a constant value in the simpli-
i
fled model, the scattering of the
0 0 i
points expresses the effect of the soil
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 background on the considered in-
SAIL SAIL dex.

Table 3. VI RMS D e t e r m i n e d with Simplified Model as
Compared to SAIL Simulations.
vl RMS RMS / (VI=- VI~)~
NDVI 0.0570 0.0738
PV1 0.0187 0.0548
SAVI 0.0204 0.0315
TSAVI 0.0101 0.0141
~The third column gives the normalized RMS.
dices which introduce corrections of the back-
ground effect. For this reason Figures 4a and 4b,
corresponding to NDVI and PVI, display larger
scatter than Figures 4c and 4d, corresponding to
SAVI and TSAVI. Low NDVI values are mainly
affected by the soil (Fig. 4a). The effect of the soil
on PVI is the largest for medium values of this
index (Fig. 4b). SAVI and TSAVI (Figs. 4c and 4d)
greatly reduce the scattering and TSAVI is the
better index according to this test. It is clear that
Eq. (10) is a good semiempirical approximation of
the VI(LAI) relation as confirmed by the statistical
analyses (Table 3). The root mean square error,
evaluated for each VI, has been normalized by the
amplitude of variation (VI=-VIg), to facilitate the
comparison.
Sensitivity Analysis of the Relations between
VI and LAI
The sensitivity of VI(LAI, ALA) to soil background
or leaf inclination has been characterized by the
standard deviation (~rvi) of the relation between
LAI and VI. This noise is translated into relative
equivalent LAI noise (RENtz I) defined by
O'LaI / L A I , using the local slope of the LAI-VI
relation (d(VI)/d(LAI))
RENLAI O'LAI_ ~rvi (d(Vi))-1
= LA---]- LA~ d(LAI)
The slope of the relation between VI and LAI
can be deduced from Eq. (10):
d(VI)
d(LAI) - KvI'(VIg-VI=)'exp(- KvI'LAI ).
In Eq. (11) VIg is fixed at its average value
given in Table 2. In most cases VIg varies with soil
type, soil roughness, and moisture, and is not
generally known. However, information on ALA
Vegetation Indices for LAI and APAR Assessment 167
which is mainly determined by species and phe-
nology, is often available. For this reason we shall
first analyze the sensitivity to soil background for a
given ALA and then evaluate the global sensitivity
to both soil background and ALA.
Equation (11) shows that RENLAI is the largest
when the slope of the relation between LAI and
VI is the smallest. For this reason the uncertainty
on LAI is maximum when the asymptotic level is
reached.
Sensitivity to Soil Background for a Given ALA
RENLA~ [Eq. (11)] is computed from data in Table
1 but for only four different ALA values (35 °, 45 °,
55 °, and 65 °) in order to decouple the effects of
soil background and ALA. Figure 5 displays the
results of this sensitivity study. There are some
large differences among the VIs and their variation
with leaf inclination. Since NDVI is strongly
affected by the soil optical properties, the rela-
tive equivalent noise is very large, for this vege-
tation index, when the vegetation density is low
(LAI < 0.5), and when LAI is greater than 3, for
canopies with a low ALA (35 ° and 45 ° on Fig. 5).
At LAI less than 4, the relative equivalent noise
does not change much with the increasing LAI if
PVI, SAVI, or TSAVI are considered. In this do-
main the better index is TSAVI (RENLAI = 15%)
followed by SAVI and PVI. These three indices
have the same noise in the LAI range 2-4. For
LAI greater than 4 the hierarchy among the in-
dices changes, especially when the leaves have a
low inclination. For that case the worst index is
TSAVI followed by NDVI, SAVI, and PVI. For
erect leaves the best index is NDVI followed by
TSAVI, SAVI, and PVI.
The large variations observed in the relative
equivalent noise for NDVI and TSAVI, when LAI
is greater than 4, are due to the low values of the
(11)
slope of the relation VI-LAI, because VI is near
its saturation level. A small variation in VI can
correspond to a large variation in LAI. This result
is mainly due to differences in Kvi (Fig. 3) which
determines the magnitude of the slope between VI
and LAI [Eq. (12)].
(12)
Sensitivity to Soil Background and Leaf Inclination
We next discuss the sensitivity of VI to soil back-
ground and leaf inclination. For a given LAI, O-vi
is again computed using the data set of Table 1
(variations in soil optical properties and ALA). It is
168 Baret and Guyot

ALA = 35 ° ALA = 4 5 °

0 0

0.5 0.5

0 0
10-t 10 o 101 NDVI 10-1 10 o I01
LAI PVI .... LAI
SAVI .......
~ = 55 ° ALA = 65 °
TSAVI -.-- 1
03

O 0

Figure ,5. Sensitivity of LAI d e t e r -

0.5 mination to soil b a c k g r o u n d w h e n
0.5
different vegetation indices are used
and for 4 average leaf angles (ALA).
T h e sensitivity is e x p r e s s e d as LAI
relative equivalent noise as a flmc-
0 0 tion o f LAI (h)garithmic scale).
10-1 10 o I01 10-1 10 o 101 R E N t a I is e x p r e s s e d in decimal
I.AI LAI fractions ( R E N l~al = crI,AI/LAD.

imately 20% for SAVI and TSAVI and 10% for

PVI.
"2 / Nov, (ii) When LAI is greater than 3, the noise
o.5 /:/ .... increases sharply as for the effect of soil back-
ground (see above). The additional noise dne to
"~ TSAVI - " -- ALA variation is also quite large.
i i i i i } 111 * i i 1 1 i

10-1 10 0 101
LAI Conclusion
Figure 6. Effect o f soil b a c k g r o u n d and leaf inclination on
LAI estimation from VI. T h e sensitivity is e x p r e s s e d as LAI
relative e q u i v a l e n t noise as a function o f LAI (logarithmic The VI(LAI) relation can be set in the fi)rm of a
scale). R E N t a I is e x p r e s s e d in decimal fraction. simple semiempirical Beer's law [Eq. (10)]. This
approach was used to facilitate the comparison
between the differing VIs. The sensitivity analysis
then translated into RENI~ I using Eqs. (11) and shows that Vls, devised to minimize soil back-
(12). Figure 6 shows that the variation in relative ground effect (PVI, SAVI, TSAVI), strongly reduce
equivalent noise, due to leaf inclination, signifi- the noise for low leaf area indices (LAI < 2-3).
cantly increases whatever the VI considered• Two For greater leaf area indices this gain can be
domains can be distinguished (Fig. 6), that is, compensated by the magnitude of the slope of the
LAI > 3 (i) and LAI < 3 (ii). VI(LAI) fimetion. For example, TSAVI which was
(i) For NDVI, the noise in the determination the best VI for lower LAI, introduced the largest
of LAI decreases with increasing LAI, up to LAI noise for large LAI because it reached its satura-
= 3. This behavior is mainly attributed to soil tion level before the other VIs (except NDVI).
background effect. For the other indices, the noise The noise due to soil background was amplified
is practically constant and the best index is TSAVI when combined with the noise due to leaf inclina-
followed by SAVI and PVI. The contribution of the tion. In all cases it seems to be very diffieuh to
noise due to leaf angle distribution increases the estimate LAI through VI measurements when VI
RENtAI due to soil background (Fig. 5) by approx- is close to Viol, especially when ALA is not known.

RELATION BETWEEN VEGETATION
INDICES AND ABSORBED
PHOTOSYNTHETICALLY ACTIVE
RADIATION (APAR)
General Semiempirical Model Relating
Vegetation Indices and APAR
In the PAR spectral domain (400-700 nm), the
fraction of absorbed incoming radiation (P) can be
determined from the radiative balance:
P=I-R,,-(1-G)'T c, (13)
where the terms for the PAR domain are
R,~ = canopy hemispherical reflectance,
R~ = soil background hemispherical reflectance,
TC= canopy hemispherical transmittance.
This fraction is often expressed as a function
of LAI. Field measurements performed on differ-
ent crops such as wheat (Hipps et al., 1983),
maize (Gallo et al., 1985), cotton (Wiegand and
Richardson, 1990b), and grassland (Weiser et al.,
1986) show that the seasonal behavior of P, as a
function of LAI, can be expressed by an exponen-
tial function based on Beer's law,
P = P~[1- B ' e x p ( - Kt,.LAI)], (14)
where P~ is the asymptotically limiting value of
PAR absorption for infinite thick canopy
(P~= 0.94) (Wiegand and Hatfield, 1988; Baret
and Olioso, 1989). B is a parameter ranging be-
tween 0.8 and 1.2, depending on experimental
errors and deviations from model assumption (ran-
dom distribution of the leaves) (B is usually set to
1). Kp is equivalent to Kvi in Eq. (11). It is
analogous to the extinction coefficient of the Beer's
law and depends on leaf angle distribution and
irradiance geometry. For green leaves which have
very high absorptance in the PAR domain, Kp is
very close to the extinction coefficient which is
defined to compute the interception of light beams
in the canopy.
Absorbed PAR energy can be related to the
photosynthetic activity of vegetation if it is inte-
grated from sunset to sunrise. In such conditions
the V I - P relation corresponds to the situation
where radiometric data are measured at noon,
with clear sky conditions, and compared to daily
averaged P. As a consequence, it is necessary to
convoluate, over the day, the instantaneous incom-
Vegetation Indices for LAI and APAR Assessment I69
ing solar energy to the corresponding instanta-
neous P fraction. For this reason the V I - P rela-
tionships discussed hereafter correspond to the
daily averaged fraction (P) of absorbed PAR, com-
puted for a 45 ° latitude and a 45 ° solar zenith
angle at noon. Nonlinear fitting of Eq. (14) with
B = 1 to SAIL simulated P values for the Table 1
data set leads to P= = 0.94 and Kt, value close to
1.00 (Baret and Olioso, 1989). These values are
little affected by leaf inclination and in good
agreement with experimental results (Asrar et al.,
1984; Varlet-Grancher et al., 1989).
LAI can be determined from reflectance mea-
surements in red and near-infrared spectral bands,
so that it is possible to derive P from VI (Daughtry
et al., 1983; Hatfield et al., 1984; Wiegand and
Richardson, 1984, 1990a; Gallo et al., 1985). Com-
bining the two simplified models, represented by
Eqs. (10) and (14), we establish an analytical
relation between P and VI:
[ ( VI~-VI ) (K'/K'')]
e = 1- (15)
This equation shows that P is affected by the
optical properties of the soil through VI~ and by
the canopy geometry through K t , / K v l and VI~.
Sensitivity Analysis of the Relation between
P and VI
We shall use similar concepts to those used for
LAI determination to define the P relative equiva-
lent noise (RENt,).
R E N t _ o¥ _ try, [ d(VI) ] - ' (16)
e e [d(e) J
The slope of the relation between VI and P can be
deduced from Eq. (15):
dP ol" P~" (VI~ - V I ) ¢'-1)
(17)
W Ix) ot
d(VI) (VI~-
where a = K e / K v l .
As for the VI(LAI) sensitivity analysis, we shall
compare the case in which ALA is known and the
case in which it is not known. In the second case,
REN t, is a composition of soil brightness and ALA
effects.
170 Baret and Guyot

ALA = 35 ° ALA = 45 °
10 o 10 o

10-t "~ l O - i
co

,.d
0~

i0-~ 10o NDVI--

10-2

10-t 10 o
t0-t
PVI .... P
SAVI .......
M~ = 55 ° TSAVI --.-- 10 o M.~ = 65 °
10 0 v i i i , , T ~_

!
0

Figure 7. Sensitivity of P determi-

nation to soil background when dif-
10-t '~ lO-I
o~ ~O
ferent vegetation indices are used
.d and for four average leaf angles
(ALA). The sensitivity is expressed
~o
as P relative equivalent noise as a
10-2 10-2 function of P, both on logarithmic
tO-t 10 o 10-1 lO o scales. REN e is expressed in deci-
mal fraction.

Sensitivity to Soil Background for a Given ALA 10 o

The REN e is calculated for four different leaf
inclinations (35 °, 45 °, 55 °, and 65 °) using the data
.,,.4
0 ~ ' ', I' '" ' '',,'
', N D V I
set of Table 1. Figure 7 shows the existence of lO-I
PVI ....
large differences in the noise associated with dif- SAVI .......
ferent indices. When P is less than 0.5, the worst m
TSAVI --"
--
index is NDVI. PVI also induces large errors in
estimating P whatever the leaf inclination• For 10-2
10-t 10 0
this reason, it is not recommended for assessing P.
SAVI and TSAVI provide a good estimate of P
P
Figure 8. Effect of soil background and leaf inclination on P
throughout the whole domain of P values• How- estimation from VI. The sensitivity is expressed as P relative
ever, TSAVI is better especially for erect leaves. equivalent noise as a function of P, both on logarithmic
The relative noise decreases when the canopy scales. REN e is expressed in decimal fraction.
density increases• For very dense canopies any
vegetation index estimates P well. Conclusion
A general semiempirical model is proposed [Eq.
Sensitivity Analysis to Soil Background and (15)] to relate P to VI. It is based on two semiem-
Leaf Inclination pirical models relating P to LAI [Eq. (14)] and
Figure 8 displays the results of the sensitivity LAI to VI [Eq. (10)]. It gives a formulation within
analysis P(VI) to both leaf inclination and soil which the sensitivity of P to soil background and
background. We observe the same hierarchy of leaf inclination can be analyzed through the use of
indices as shown in Figure 7. The best index is VIs. TSAVI seems to be the most reliable VI when
TSAVI followed by SAVI, PVI, and NDVI. Dif- the leaf inclination angle is known. The relative
ferences in relative noise among the VIs are less- equivalent noise is always below 10%• NDVI and
ened comparatively to the case corresponding only PVI are very sensitive to soil optical properties,
to the soil background effect. Nevertheless, SAVI especially for P values below 0.5, so that they are
and TSAVI have REN e below 30% over the range the least reliable• When the leaf inclination is not
of variation of P, which drastically decreases when known, SAVI and TSAVI are better than NDVI
P is greater than 0.5. and PVI for estimating P.

GENERAL CONCLUSION
The most commonly used vegetation indices, com-
bining red and near-infrared reflectance or radi-
ance data, have been sorted into two categories:
distance-related vegetation indices (PVI, WDVI,
GVI) and slope-related vegetation indices (RVI,
NDVI, SAVI, TSAVI). For the sensitivity analysis
we selected four indices (NDVI, PVI, SAVI,
TSAVI) that are not functionally equivalent, and
proposed general semiempirical models to relate
VI to LAI and VI to P. The sensitivity analysis of
these relations was performed using an easily un-
derstandable criterion: the relative equivalent
noise. It allowed us to compare the sensitivity of
LAI and P estimates to VI values, on the same
basis.
The results show that NDVI and, to a lesser
degree, PVI are strongly affected by the variation
of soil optical properties. This is particularly im-
portant for low vegetation cover. In contrast,
TSAVI and to a lesser degree SAVI, exhibit inter-
esting behavior. A main problem, in estimating
LAI from VIs, occurs for LAI greater than 3. The
asymptotic trend of the VI(LAI) relation prevents
us in accurately estimating LAI when VI is close
to VI~. This limitation in VI interpretation can be
avoided if the P(VI) relation is used. The P rela-
tive equivalent noise is generally smaller than the
REN associated with LAI, especially for high P
values, when the uncertainty on P tends towards
zero. In that case TSAVI and, in a lesser degree,
SAVI performs better than PVI or NDVI. We note
the importance of additional noise due to leaf
inclination angle and found a good agreement of
our results with those of Vygodskaya et al. (1989).
It suggests that, for satellite application, identifi-
cation of the specific crop (or dominant crop) and
a priori knowledge of the corresponding set of
parameters (VI=, KvI , K e, P=) of the semiempirical
models, will significantly improve the accuracy of
determination of vegetation characteristics.
Our results are derived from SAIL model sim-
ulations performed on a limited set of input vari-
ables. Mthough we believe that the main conclu-
sions will not change quantitatively, further work
on model simulation or on experimental data is
needed.
We have paid attention only to the effect of
soil background brightness and leaf inclination
angle. It is of interest to consider other parame-
ters, which cannot be controlled directly, such as
Vegetation Indices for LAI and APAR Assessment 1 71
leaf optical properties or atmospheric conditions.
There is no doubt that the restricted vegetation
indices, based on reflectance factors of red and
near-infrared bands, cannot solve simultaneously
all these ambiguities. It is necessary to extend the
concept to more than two spectral bands and one
view direction. The increasing complexity for
building these "extended" indices will presumably
tend towards the implicitly underlying "inverse"
problem.
REFERENCES
Aase, J. K., Siddoway F. H., and Millard J. P. (1984), Spring
wheat leaf phytomass and yield estimates from airborne
scanner and hand-held radiometer measurements, Int. J.
Remote Sens. 5:771-781.
Ahlrichs, J. S., and Bauer, M. E. (1983), Relation of agro-
nomic and multispectral reflectance characteristics of
spring wheat canopies, Agron. J. 75:987-993.
Asrar, G., Fuchs, M., Kanemasu, E. T., and Hatfield, J. L.
(1984), Estimating absorbed photosynthetic radiation and
leaf area index from spectral reflectance in wheat, Agron.
J. 76:300-306.
Asrar, G., Kanemasu, E. T., Jackson, R. D., and Pinter, P. J.
(1985a), Estimation of total above ground phytomass pro-
duction using remotely sensed data, Remote Sens. Envi-
ron. 17:211-220.
Asrar, G., Kanemasu, E. T., and Yoshida, M. (1985b), Esti-
mates of leaf area index from spectral reflectance of wheat
under different cultural practices and solar angle, Remote
Sens. Environ. 17:1-11.
Badhwar, G. D., Verhoef, W., and Bunnik, N. J. J. (1985), A
comparative study of Suits and SAIL canopy reflectance
models, Remote Sens. Environ. 17:179-195.
Baret, F. (1986), Contribution au suivi radiom~trique de
cultures de c~r~ales, Thesis, Univ. Paris-Sud Orsay, n ° 98,
182:pp.
• Baret, F. (1990), La r~gression non lin~aire: quelques applica-
tions dans le domaine de la t~l~d~tection, in Remote
Sensing from Space: Physical Aspects and Modelling,
Toulouse, France, August 1988, CNES Ed., Cepadues-
Editions, Toulouse, pp. 413-419.
Baret, F., and Olioso, A. (1989), Estimation ?t partir de
mesures de r~flectance spectrale du rayonnement photo-
synth~tiquement actif absorb~ par une culture de bl~,
Agronomic 9:885-895.
Baret, F., Guyot, G., and Major, D. (1989a), Crop biomass
evaluation using radiometric measurements, Photogram-
metria (PRS) 43:241-256.
Baret, F., Guyot, G., and Major, D. (1989b), TSAVI: a vegeta-
tion index which minimizes soil brightness effects on LAI
and APAR estimation, in 12th Canadian Symp. on Remote
172 Baret and Guyot
Sensing and IGARSS'90, Vancouver, Canada, 10-14 July
1989, 4 pp.
Best, R. G., and Harlan, J. C. (1985), Spectral estimation of
green leaf area index of oats, Remote Sens. Environ.
17:27-36.
Brach, E. J., Desjardins, R. L., Lord, D., and Dube, P. A.
(1981), Field spectrometer to measure percent ground
coverage and leaf area index of agriculture crops, in Inter-
national CoUoquium on Spectral Signatures of Objects in
Remote Sensing, Avignon, France, 8-11 Sept., Les Collo-
ques de I'INRA N ° 5, Ed. INRA, Versailles, pp. 323-330.
Campbell, G. S. (1986), Extinction coefficients for radiation in
plant canopies calculated using an ellipsoidal inclination
angle distribution, Agric. Forest Meteorol. 36:317-321.
Chance, J. E. (1981), Crop identification and leaf area index
calculation with Landsat multispectral data, Int. J. Remote
Sens. 2:1-14.
Choudhury, B. J. (1987), Relationships between vegetation
indices, radiation absorption and net photosynthesis evahl-
ated by a sensitivity analysis, Remote Sens. Environ.
22:209-233.
Clevers, J. G. P. W. (1986), The application of a vegetation
index in correcting the infrared reflectance for soil back-
ground, in Proc. Syrup on Remote Sensing for Resources
Development and Environmental Management, Enschede,
25-29 August 1986 (M. C. J. Damen, G. Sicco Smit, and
H. TH. Verstappen, Eds.), International Archives of Pho-
togrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vol. 26 (7/1), Balkema,
Rotterdam, Boston, pp. 221-226.
Clevers, J. G. P. W. (1988), The derivation of a simplified
reflectance model for the estimation of leaf area index,
Remote Sens. Environ. 25:53-69.
Clevers, J. G. P. W. (1989), The application of a weighted
infiared-red vegetation index for estimating leaf area index
hy correcting fur soil moisture, Remote Sens. Environ.
29:25-37.
Daughtry, C. S. T., Bauer, M. E., Crecellius, D. W., and
Hixson, M. M., (1980), Effects of management practices on
reflectance of spring wheat canopies, Agron. J.
72:1055-1060.
Daught~,, C. S. T., Gallo, K P., and Bauer, M. E. (1983),
Spectral estimates of solar radiation intercepted by corn
canopies, Agron. J. 75:527-531.
Elvidge, C. D., and Lyon, R. J. P. (1985), Influence of
rock-soil spectral variation on assessment of green biomass,
Remote Sens. Environ. 17:265-279.
Gallo, K. P., Daughtry, C. S. T., and Bauer, M. E. (1985),
Spectral estimation of absorbed Photosynthetically active
radiation in corn canopies, Remote Sens. Environ.
17:221-232.
Goel, N. S., and Deering, D. W. (1985), Evaluation of a
canopy reflectance model for LAI estimation through its
inversion, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. GE-
23:674-684.
Hatfield, J. L., Asrar, G., and Kanemasu, E. T. (1984), Inter-
cepted photosynthetically active radiation estimated by
spectral reflectance, Remote Sens. Environ. 14:65-75.
Hatfield, J. L., Kanemasu, E. T., Asrar, C., Jackson, R. D.,
Pinter, P. J., Jr., Reginato, R. J., and ldso, S. B. (1985),
Leaf-area estimates from spectral measurements over vari-
ous planting dates of wheat, Int. J. Remote Sens.
6:167-175.
Hipps, L. E., Asrar, G., and Kanemasu, E. T. (1983), Assess-
ing the interception of photosynthetically active radiation
ill winter wheat, Agric. Meteorol. 28:253-259.
Holben, B. N., Tucker, C. J., and Fan, C. J. (1980), Spectral
assessment of soybean leaf area and leaf biomass, Pho-
togramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 46:651-656.
Holben, B. N., Kimes, D. S., and Fraser, R. S. (1986),
Directional reflectance in AVHRR red and near-IR bands
for three cover types and varying atmospheric conditions,
Remote Sens. Environ. 19:213-236.
Huete, A. R. (1987a), Soil dependent spectral response in a
developing plant canopy, Agron. J. 79:61-68.
Huete, A. R. (1987b), Soil and Sun angle interactions on
partial canopy spectra, Int. J. Remote Sens. 8:1307-1317.
Huete, A. R. (1988), A soil adjusted vegetation index (SAVI),
Remote Sens. Environ. 25:295-309.
Huete, A. R. (1989), Soil influences in remotely sensed vege-
tation-canopy spectra, in Theory and Application of Optical
Remote Sensing (G. Asrar, Ed.), Wiley Series in Remote
Sensing, Wiley, New York, pp. 107-141.
tluete, A. R., and Jackson, R. D. (1987), The suitability of
spectral indices for evaluating vegetation characteristics on
arid range-lands, Remote Sens. Environ. 23:213-232.
Iluete, A. R., Post, D. F., and Jackson, R. D. (1984), Soil
spectral effect on 4-space vegetation discrimination, Re-
mote Sens. Environ. 15:155-165.
ltuete, A. R., Jackson, R. D., and Post, D. F. (1985), Spectral
response of a plant canopy with different soil backgrounds,
Remote Sens. Environ. 17:37-53.
Jackson, R. D. (1983), Spectral indices in n-space, Remote
Sens. Environ. 13:409-421.
Jackson, R. D. (1986), Spectral response of architecturally
different wheat canopies, Remote Sens. Environ. 20:43-56.
Jackson, R. D., Pinter, P. J., Idso, S. B., and Reginato, R. J.
(1979), Wheat spectral reflectance: interaction between
crop configuration, sun elevation and azimuth angle, Appl.
Opt. 18:3730-3732.
Jackson, R. D., Slater, P. N., and Pinter, P. J., Jr. (1983),
Discrimination of growth and water stress in wheat by
various vegetation indices through clear and turbid atmo-
spheres, Remote Sens. Environ. 13:187-208.
Jacquemoud, S., and Baret, F. (1990), PROSPECT: a model
of leal optical properties spectra, Remote Sens. Environ.,
34:75-91.
Kanemasu, E. T. (1974), Seasonal canopy reflectance patterns
of wheat, sorghum and soybean, Remote Sens. Environ.
3:43-47.

Kauth, R. J., and Thomas, G. S. (1976), The Tasselled C a p - - a
graphic description of the spectral-temporal development
of agricultural crops as seen by Landsat, in Proc. Symp. on
Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN, pp. 41-51.
Kollenkark, J. C., Vanderbilt, V. C., Bauer, M. E., and Hous-
ley, T. L. (1982), Effect of cultural practices on agronomic
and reflectance characteristics of soybean canopies, Agron.
J. 74:751-758.
Major, D. J., Baret, F., and Guyot, G. (1990), A ratio vegeta-
tion index adjusted for soil brightness, Int. J. Remote Sens.
11(5):727-740.
Pearson, R. L., and Miller, L. D. (1972), Remote mapping of
standing crop biomass for estimation of the productivity of
the short-grass Prairie, Pawnee National Grasslands, Col-
orado, in Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Remote Sens. of Environ.,
ERIM, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 1357-1381.
Richardson, A. J., and Wiegand, C. L. (1977), Distinguishing
vegetation from soil background information, Photogramm.
Eng. Remote Sens. 43:1541-1552.
Rouse, J. W., Haas, R. H., Schell, J. A., Deering, D. W., and
Harlan, J. C. (1974), Monitoring the vernal advancement
of retrogradation of natural vegetation, NASA/GSFC, Type
III, Final Report, Greenbelt, MD, 371 pp.
Sellers, P. J. (1985), Canopy reflectance, photosynthesis and
transpiration, Int. J. Remote Sens. 6:1335-1372.
Sellers, P. J. (1987), Canopy reflectance, photosynthesis and
transpiration II. The role of the biophysics in the linearity
of their dependence, Remote Sens. Environ. 21:143-183.
Shibayama, M., Wiegand, C. L., and Richardson, A. J. (1986),
Diurnal patterns of bidirectional vegetation indices for
wheat canopies, Int. J. Remote Sens. 7:233-246.
Tucker, C. J. (1979), Red and photographic infrared linear
combinations for monitoring vegetation, Remote Sens. En-
viron. 8:127-150.
Vanderbilt, V. C., Kollenkark, J. C., Biehl, L. L., Robinson,
B. F., Bauer, M. E., and Ranson, K. J. (1981), Diurnal
changes in reflectance factor due to sun-row direction
interactions, in International Colloquium on Spectral Sig-
natures of Objects in Remote Sensing, Avignon, France,
8-11 Sept., Les colloques de rlNRA N ° 5, Ed. INRA,
Versailles, pp. 499-508.
Varlet-Grancher, C., Gosse, G., Chartier, M., Sinoquet, H.,
Bonhomme, R., and Allirand, J. M. (1989), Mise au point:
Vegetation Indices for LAI and A P A R Assessment 173
rayonnement solaire absorb6 ou intercept6 par un couvert
v6gdtal, Agronomie 9:419-439.
Verhoef, W. (1984), Light scattering by leaf layers with
application to canopy reflectance modeling: the SAIL
model, Remote Sens. Environ. 16:125-141.
Verhoef, W. (1985), Earth observation modeling based on
layer scattering matrices, Remote Sens. Environ.
17:165-178.
Vygodskaya, N. N., Gorshkova, I. I., and Fadeyeva, Ye. V.
(1989), Theoretical estimates of sensitivity in some vegeta-
tion indices to variation in the canopy condition, Int. J.
Remote Sens. 10:1857-1872.
Wang, Y. P., and Jarvis, P. G. (1988), Mean leaf angles for the
ellipsoidal inclination angle distribution, Agric. Forest Me-
teorol. 43:319-321.
Wanjura, D. F., and Hatfield, J. L. (1987), Sensitivity of
spectral vegetation indices to crop biomass, Trans. ASAE
30:810-816.
Weiser, R. L., Asrar, G., Miller, G. P., and Kanemasu, E. T.
(1986), Assessing grassland characteristics from spectral
measurements, Remote Sens. Environ. 20:141-152.
Wiegand, C. L., and Hatfield, J. L. (1988), The Spectral-Agro-
nomic Multisite-multicrop Analyses (SAMMA) Project, in
Proc. 16th Cong., Int. Soc. Photogramm. and Remote
Sens., Kyoto, Japan, 1-10 July 1988, Int. Arch. Pho-
togramm. Remote Sens. 27(B7):696-706.
Wiegand, C. L., and Richardson, A. J. (1984), Leaf area, light
interception and yield estimates from spectral components
analysis, Agron. J. 76:543-548.
Wiegand, C. L., Richardson, A. J. (1990a), Use of spectral
vegetation indices to infer leaf area, evapotranspiration
and yield: I. Rationale, Agron. J. 82:623-629.
Wiegand, C. L., and Richardson, A. J. (1990b), Use of spectral
vegetation indices to infer leaf area, evapotranspiration
and yield: II. Results, Agron. J. 82:630-636.
Wiegand, C. L., Gausman, H. W., Cuellar, J. A., Gerberman,
A. H., and Richardson, A. J. (1974), Vegetation density as
deduced from ERTS-1 MSS response, Third ERTS Symp.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Vol. I,
pp. 93-116.
Wiegand, C. L., Richardson, A. J., Jackson, R. D., Pinter, P. J.,
Jr., Aase, J. K., Smika, D. E., Lautenschlager, L. F., and
McMurtrey, J. E., III, (1986), Development of agrometeo-
rological crop model inputs from remotely sensed informa-
tion, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. GE-24:90-98.