International Journal of Applied Earth Observations and Geoinformation 102 (2021) 102415

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Applied Earth

Observations and Geoinformation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jag

Thermal infrared remote sensing of vegetation: Current status

and perspectives
Elnaz Neinavaz a, *, Martin Schlerf b, Roshanak Darvishzadeh a, Max Gerhards c,
Andrew K. Skidmore a, d
a
Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
b
Environmental Research and Innovation Department, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, L-4362 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
c
University of Trier, Faculty of Geography and Geosciences, Department of Environmental Remote Sensing & Geoinformatics, Behringstraße, D-54296 Trier, Germany
d
Department of Earth and Environmental Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Vegetation plays a vital role in the ecological functioning of terrestrial and coastal ecosystems. Remote sensing
Thermal infrared generally provides timely and accurate information to manage ecosystems sustainably and effectively. In this
Emissivity respect, thermal infrared (TIR, 3–14 µm) remote sensing data form a valuable data source for vegetation studies.
Vegetation
The TIR data provides unique information compared to other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. This article
Canopy
Leaf
aims to gather and review the most relevant information obtained using TIR remote sensing data for terrestrial
Temperature vegetation at leaf and canopy levels using laboratory/field-based, airborne and spaceborne platforms. We
address this topic from various angles, particularly focusing on vegetation discrimination as well as the quan­
tification of water stress by means of canopy temperature and spectral emissivity. In addition, attempts to
associate TIR spectral features with vegetation biochemical compounds, as well as the retrieval of vegetation
biochemical and biophysical parameters, are reviewed. Research needs and requirements for successful use of
remote sensing in vegetation studies across the TIR region, as well as significant challenges, are also discussed.
Our review reveals that, despite the increasing interest among remote sensing experts in using TIR data, there are
still large gaps in our understanding and interpretation of TIR imagery. Some inconsistent findings and con­
tradictory observations have come to light in different levels (i.e., leaf and canopy levels). In addition, our review
shows that airborne and TIR hyperspectral-based studies are currently limited due to cost, particularly across
large spatial extents. It can be concluded that TIR remote sensing of vegetation offers unique insights in un­
derstanding terrestrial vegetation (e.g., vegetation water stress and retrieval of biophysical parameters). TIR is
complementary to other remote sensing data sources, with a high potential for fusing data from different parts of
the spectrum. However, we highlight challenges obtaining consistent, meaningful and accurate results for land
surface temperature and land surface emissivity retrieval.

1. Introduction
Throughout the years, and depending on the field of application, the
thermal infrared (TIR) spectral range has received different definitions,
ranging from 1.1 µm upwards (Billings and Morris 1951) to 3–35 μm
(Prakash 2000), and even to 3–1000 μm (Kuenzer and Dech 2013). The
most widely accepted range for TIR remote sensing in vegetation studies
is 3–14 µm, divided into the MWIR (3–5 µm) and the LWIR (8–14 µm).
The MWIR receives both emitted radiation from Earth and reflected
radiation from the Sun, while the LWIR is dominated by the emitted
component (Jensen 2007).
Remote sensing of vegetation studies have been widely carried out in
the VNIR (0.3–1.0 µm) and SWIR (1.0–2.5 µm) regions with a focus on
biochemical and biophysical vegetation properties (Cho et al. 2008;
Clevers et al. 2010; Darvishzadeh et al. 2009; Mutanga and Skidmore
2004; Schlerf and Atzberger 2012; Schlerf et al. 2005). However, spec­
tral data from the VNIR and SWIR domains do not adequately describe
all structural and chemical characteristics of vegetation. Specific

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: e.neinavaz@utwente.nl (E. Neinavaz), martin.schlerft@list.lu (M. Schlerf), r.darvish@utwente.nl (R. Darvishzadeh), gerhardsm@uni-trier.de
(M. Gerhards), a.k.skidmore@utwente.nl (A.K. Skidmore).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2021.102415
Received 29 March 2021; Received in revised form 14 June 2021; Accepted 23 June 2021
Available online 2 July 2021
1569-8432/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E. Neinavaz et al. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 102 (2021) 102415

vegetation components such as polysaccharides (e.g., cellulose) and leaf
surface properties (e.g., waxes and hairs) have their primary absorption
features located in the TIR domain (Ribeiro da Luz and Crowley 2007).
Technological progress in the development of TIR spectrometers and
sensors for laboratory, field, airborne and spaceborne platforms has
further enabled the acquisition of high spectral resolution data in the
MWIR and LWIR domains. Nevertheless, at satellite and airborne scale,
the number of TIR sensors (Table 1) is still well below the number of
VNIR/SWIR sensors (Angelopoulou et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2019). Table 1
presents an overview of TIR sensors operating at satellite, airborne, field
and laboratory scale.
The TIR domain has hardly been explored in vegetation studies. The
spectral behaviour of plants has been misinterpreted to some extent in
the TIR region due to a range of challenges, such as the complexity of
vegetation spectral features and the lack of suitable devices with a low
signal to noise performance (Kirkland et al. 2002; Ribeiro da Luz and
Crowley 2010; Ullah et al. 2012b). In the past few decades, these former
limitations have primarily been overcome, which has resulted in a
growing number of studies, mainly at the leaf level, on the character­
ization, identification, and discrimination of plant species (Buitrago
Acevedo et al. 2017; Gates and Tantraporn 1952; Ribeiro da Luz and
Crowley 2007; Rock et al. 2016; Ullah et al. 2012b) and a limited
number of studies at canopy level (Meerdink et al. 2019; Ribeiro da Luz
and Crowley 2010) on the retrieval of vegetation biochemical and bio­
physical parameters (Neinavaz et al. 2016b; Neinavaz et al. 2017; Ullah
et al. 2014), as well as on water stress detection (Gerhards et al. 2018;
Jones et al. 2009; Pierce et al. 1990; Sepulcre-Cantó et al. 2006). In this
respect, we present a consolidated review of the research progress in TIR
remote sensing of vegetation. It should be noted that the focus of this
paper is on evaluating the use of TIR remote sensing data for vegetation
studies rather than the methodology used in this field. We classify the
existing studies into a few key groups and subsequently identify po­
tential gaps. Further, we explore the role of TIR remote sensing for
vegetation studies and deriving recommendations for future research.
More than three decades have passed since Salisbury et al. (1994)
anticipated that by the end of the 20th century, the Earth observation
system would deliver rapid and wide-reaching TIR data. However, the
number of TIR satellites with a high spatial resolution needed for
vegetation applications is limited to MODIS, Landsat-8, Sentinel-3 (Xue
and Su, 2017), and the experimental ECOSTRESS sensor onboard ISS.
Planned systems, such as Landsat-9, Surface Biology and Geology (SBG,
former HySPIRI) and the future Copernicus candidate mission LSTM,
raise hopes for an increase in the numbers of future studies and appli­
cations in the vegetation domain.

Table 1
Summary of thermal infrared satellite missions (in italics) with their corresponding sensors, airborne sensors (manufacturers in italics), and laboratory or field spec­
trometers (manufacturers in italics). The space borne platforms still in operation are shown in bold type.
Satellite mission / Sensor or Manufacturer No. Bands Wavelength Spatial resolution Reference

Space borne NOAA/ AVHRR3 2 Bands 10.3–12.5 µm 1090 m (ESA, 2020)

NOAA-10/ ERBE 1 Band 10.5–12.5 µm 50000 m (Barkstrom and Hall Jr, 1982)
ENVISAT/ AATSR 2 Bands 10.8–12 µm 1000 m (ESA, 2007)
Sentinel-3/ SLSTR 2 Bands 10.85–12 µm 1000 m (Donlon et al., 2012)
Terra/ MODIS 8 Bands 8.4–14.38 µm 1000 m (Barnes et al., 2003)
Aqua/ MODIS 8 Bands 8.4–14.38 µm 1000 m
BIRD/ HSRS 1 Band 8.5–9.3 µm 372 m (Schuster et al., 2002)
Terra/ ASTER 5 Bands 8.12–11.65 µm 90 m (Abrams et al., 2015)
Landsat-8/ TIRS 2 Bands 10.6–12.51 µm 100 m (USGS, 2017)
Landsat-7/ ETMþ 1 Band 10.4–12.5 µm 60 m
Landsat-5/ TM 1 Band 10.4–12.5 µm 60 m
Landsat-4/ TM 1 Band 10.4–12.5 µm 120 m
ISS/ ECOSTRESS 5 Bands 8.28–12.05 µm 70
̴ m (Meerdink et al., 2019b)
Meteosat-7/ MVIRI 1 Band 10.5–12.5 µm 5000 m (WMO, 2019)
Meteosat-8, 9, 10 & 11/ SEVIRI 5 Bands 8.3–14.4 µm 3000 m (Schmid, 2000)
MTSAT-2/ Imager on MTSAT2 2 Bands 10–3–12.5 µm 4000 m (JMA, 2017)
Suomi NPP/ VIIRS 4 Bands 8.55–12.01 µm 750 m (NOAA, 2020b)
Himawari-8 & 9/ AHI1 7 Bands 7.3–13.28 µm 2000 m (Bessho et al., 2016)
ERS-1/ ATSR-1 2 Bands 10.35–12.5 µm 1000 m (Edwards et al., 1990)
ERS-2/ ATSR-2 2 Bands 10.35–12.5 µm 1000 m (Stricker et al., 1995)
ALOS-2/ CIRC 1 Band 8–12 µm 200 m (Shimada, 2009)
GCOM-C1/ SGLI 2 Bands 10.8–12 µm 500 m (JAXA, 2020)
GEOS 16& 17/ ABI 7 Bands 7.24–13.6 µm 2000 m (NOAA, 2020a)
MOS-1&1b/ VTIR 2 Bands 10.5–12.5 µm 2700 m (JAXA, 2003)
MTI/MTI 3 Bands 8.01–10.7 µm 20–14 m (Hook et al., 2005)
SeaSat/ VIRR 1 Band 10.2–12.5 µm 4400 m (Born, 1982)
Airborne TIMS 6 Bands 8.2–12.2 µm 1.4 m @ 1 km Attitude (Palluconi and Meeks, 1985)
DAIS-7915 6 Bands 8–12.3 µm 20 m @ 1 km Attitude (Mueller et al., 2002)
SeaBASS 128 Bands 7.5–13.5 µm 1.0 m @ 1 km Attitude (Hackwell et al., 1996)
ITRES / TASI-600 32 Bands 8–11.5 µm 0.85 m @ 1 km Attitude (Itres, 2015)
AHS 10 Bands 7.95–13.14 µm 2.0 m @ 1 km Attitude (Sobrino et al., 2006)
SPECIM / Aisa Owl 96 Bands 7.6–12.3 µm 1.1–1.5 m @ 1 km Altitude (Specim, 2017)
HyTES 256 Bands 7.5–12 µm 1.8 m @ 1 km Attitude (Hook et al., 2013)
TELOPS / Hyper-Cam LW2 32–128 Bands 7.7–11.8 µm 0.3 m @ 1 km Altitude (Lagueux et al., 2009)
ATLAS 6 Bands 8.2–12.2 µm 2.0 m @ 1 km Altitude (Moran, 1998)
AHI 256 or 32 Bands 7.5–11.5 µm – (Lucey et al., 1998)
Lab/Field spectrometer MIDAC M4500 1400 Bands 2.5–20 µm 5.5 cm dia @ 1 m Altitude (Eisele et al., 2015)
Bruker Vertex 70 ~ 6000 Bands 2.5–16 µm 25 mm dia @ sampling port (Hecker et al., 2011)
TELOPS / Hyper-Cam LW ~ 1700 Bands 7.7–11.8 µm 0.2 cm @ 1 m Altitude (Lagueux et al., 2009)
µFTIR 102F 110 Bands 2–14 µm 10 cm dia @ 1 m Altitude (Hook and Kahle, 1996)
1
It is different from Airborne Hyperspectral Imager (AHI)
2
Hyper-Cam LW can also be used at ground level.

2
E. Neinavaz et al. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 102 (2021) 102415

2. Review approach Table 2

List of studies that investigated vegetation based on thermal infrared remote
Scientific citation databases such as Scopus, Google Scholar, and ISI sensing data per platform and scale used. Studies using simulation data or
Web of Science have been consulted in search of articles at field or reviewing different applications were excluded.
laboratory level on vegetation with the following keywords/expressions Platform Spectral Resolution Scale Reference
used: (i) thermal infrared OR thermal AND remote sensing, or spec­ Laboratory Multispectral Leaf (Gates and
trometry AND vegetation; (ii) emissivity AND remote sensing, or spec­ Tantraporn, 1952)
trometry AND vegetation; (iii) thermal AND remote sensing, or Multispectral Leaf (Wong and Blevin,
spectrometry AND vegetation. The studies have been categorized into 1967)
Thermocouple Leaf (Idso and Jackson,
three main groups according to the sensor platform deployed: space­ 1969)
borne, airborne, or laboratory/field spectrometer (Table 1), as well as Multispectral Leaf (Salisbury, 1986)
two sub-groups based on study scale: canopy and leaf. No study was Multispectral Leaf (Salisbury and Milton,
found to be using a spaceborne or airborne platform at leaf level. All 1987)
Multispectral Leaf (Salisbury and Milton,
these studies, as well as the scale and platform used, have been listed in
1988)
Table 2. Fig. 1 shows the trends in sensor use (e.g., laboratory, field/ Multispectral Leaf (Salisbury and D’Aria,
ground, airborne, spaceborne, etc) and the study level (i.e., canopy or 1992)
leaf) for the past 70 years. Table 3 lists the terminologies and abbrevi­ Infrared thermometer Vegetated (Rubio et al., 1997)
ations used in this manuscript. In total 105 scientific research papers cover
Broadband Leaf (Grant et al., 2006a)
investigated in this paper.
Broadband Leaf (Grant et al., 2006b)
Multispectral Leaf (Fabre et al., 2011)
3. Thermal infrared studies at laboratory and field level Hyperspectral Leaf (Gerber et al., 2011)
Broadband Leaf (Grant et al., 2012)
Hyperspectral Leaf (Ullah et al., 2012a)
3.1. Leaf laboratory and field studies
Hyperspectral Leaf (Ullah et al., 2012b)
Hyperspectral Leaf (Ullah et al., 2014)
Investigation of TIR remote sensing data concerning leaf character­ Hyperspectral Canopy (Neinavaz et al.,
istics started in the laboratory since only laboratory instruments could 2016b)
measure directional hemispherical reflectance (DHR), which could be Hyperspectral Canopy (Neinavaz et al.,
2016c)
converted into emissivity spectra based on Kirchhoff’s law (∊=1 − R). Hyperspectral Canopy (Neinavaz et al.,
The earliest efforts regarding vegetation TIR remote sensing studies can 2016a)
be traced back to Gates and Tantraporn (1952). They were the first to Hyperspectral Leaf (Buitrago et al., 2016)
measure leaf reflectance spectra of shrubs and deciduous trees using an Hyperspectral Leaf (Buitrago Acevedo
et al. 2017)
infrared spectrophotometer and showed that leaves are opaque. How­
Hyperspectral Canopy (Neinavaz et al.,
ever, genuinely ground-breaking was a study conducted by Ribeiro da 2017)
Luz & Crowley (2007), who applied TIR hyperspectral data and found - Hyperspectral Leaf (Buitrago et al.,
besides other things - that leaves display complex absorption features 2018b)
related to organic constituents of leaf surfaces. Since then, high spectral Hyperspectral Leaf (Buitrago et al.,
2018a)
resolution TIR laboratory measurements have led to a variety of in­ Hyperspectral Leaf (Buitrago et al.,
vestigations and applications. 2018b)
Field/Ground Infrared thermometer Canopy (Jackson et al., 1977)
3.1.1. Species discrimination Infrared thermometer Canopy (Kimes, 1980)
Infrared thermometer Leaf (Idso et al., 1981)
The first attempt to better distinguish plant differences using TIR
Infrared thermometer Canopy (Jackson et al., 1981)
data has been made by (Gates and Tantraporn 1952), who suggested that Infrared thermometer Leaf (Idso, 1982)
the upper and the lower leaf surface reflectance differed. They added Infrared thermometer Canopy (Olioso, 1995)
that the upper leaf surfaces and the old leaves tend to have noticeably Infrared thermometer Leaf (Jones, 1999)
higher reflectance values than the lower leaf surfaces and young leaves, Multispectral Canopy (Olioso et al., 2007)
Broadband Canopy (Jones et al., 2009)
respectively (Gates and Tantraporn 1952). However, Wong and Blevin Infrared thermometer Leaf & (Maes and Steppe,
(1967) showed that leaf reflectance spectra from the two leaf sides are & Broadband Canopy 2012)
neither noticeably nor systematically distinct. They further added that Multispectral Leaf (Pandya et al., 2013)
the reflectance spectra of leaves of the same species but of different age Broadband Canopy (Han et al., 2016)
Hyperspectral Leaf (Gerhards et al., 2016)
(i.e., juvenile, mature, and old yellowed leaves) are very similar in the
&Thermocouples
TIR domain. Despite previous results, Wong and Blevin (1967) findings Broadband Canopy (Elsayed et al., 2017)
can be considered initial research, broadening the belief that plants are Broadband Canopy (Banerjee et al., 2018)
featureless in the TIR domain and consider them being close to black­ Field/Ground Hyperspectral Leaf (Ribeiro da Luz and
body emitters for an extended period. However, already in the 1980s, & Laboratory Crowley, 2007)
Infrared thermometer Canopy (Maes et al., 2016)
Salisbury (1986) and Salisbury and Milton (1987, 1988) took TIR Hyperspectral Leaf & (Rock et al., 2016)
reflectance measurements of fresh leaves of 13 deciduous tree species. Canopy
They recognized that the resulting spectra were distinctive for each Space-borne Multispectral Canopy (Van de Griend and
species. They concluded that due to the unique composition and struc­ Owe, 1993)
Multispectral Canopy (Valor and Caselles,
ture of epidermal plant cells of different plant species (e.g., cuticular
1996)
waxes), the reflectance peaks are species-specific between the wave­ Multispectral Leaf (Francois et al., 1997)
lengths 8–14 µm (Salisbury and Milton 1988; Salisbury and Milton Multispectral Canopy (French et al., 2000)
1987). Arp and Phinney (1980) discovered some physiological adapta­ Multispectral Canopy (Gieske et al., 2004)
tion in plants associated with their radiational environment in the TIR Multispectral Canopy (Sobrino et al., 2004)
Multispectral Canopy (Weng et al., 2004)
region. Additionally, Salisbury and Milton (1987) revealed that the TIR
Multispectral Canopy (Jin and Liang, 2006)
spectral signature varies between spring and summer leaves, whereas
(continued on next page)
the difference is marginal between summer and fall. They also found

3
E. Neinavaz et al. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 102 (2021) 102415

Table 2 (continued ) higher reflectance values in the leaves of trees that grew in metal-
Platform Spectral Resolution Scale Reference enriched soils than in the leaves from trees in control area, while the
reflectance spectral features remained similar (Salisbury and Milton
Multispectral Canopy (Jiménez-Muñoz
et al., 2006)
1987). For senescent leaves, the increasing reflectance values were
Multispectral Canopy (Stathopoulou and found to be due to a decrease in water absorption, with the shape of the
Cartalis, 2007) spectral curve remaining unchanged (Salisbury 1986). It was also
Multispectral Canopy (Yue et al., 2007) revealed that plants leave exhibit significant differences in their emit­
Multispectral Canopy (French et al., 2008)
tance (Idso and Jackson, 1969). Furthermore, it demonstrated that
Multispectral Canopy (Mallick et al., 2008)
Multispectral Canopy (Ogawa et al., 2008) spectral changes could also be associated with plant maturity (Elvidge
Multispectral Canopy (Amiri et al., 2009) 1988). Significant differences in emissivity were also revealed for plants
Multispectral Canopy (Breunig et al., 2009) from different ecological groups, as well as for diverse plant materials (e.
Multispectral Canopy (Zhang et al., 2009) g., bark, woody materials, etc.) from individual species (Elvidge 1988).
Multispectral Canopy (Jiang and Tian,
2010)
For instance, Raven et al. (2002) revealed a difference in the emissivity
Multispectral Canopy (Zhou et al., 2011) of the leaves of two different plant species over between 2 and 15 µm. It
Multispectral Canopy (Göttsche and Hulley, should be noted that it is feasible to discriminate between senescent
2012) vegetation and bare soil using emissivity spectra (French et al., 2000).
Multispectral Canopy (Maimaitiyiming
Ullah et al. (2012b) and Buitrago et al. (2016) used an improved
et al., 2014)
Multispectral Canopy (Cheng et al., 2015) DHR measurement setup developed by Hecker et al. (2011) consisting of
Multispectral Canopy (Leroux et al., 2015) a Bruker spectrometer with an integrating sphere attached and showed
Multispectral Canopy (Rehman et al., 2015) that species could be discriminated from each other by using only six
Multispectral Canopy (Chen et al., 2016) wavebands. Ullah et al. (2012) used thermal hyperspectral data and
Multispectral Canopy (Jacob et al., 2017)
proposed important wavebands for discrimination in the MWIR (i.e.,
Multispectral Canopy (Chaithanya et al.,
2017) 3.34, 4.19, and 4.60 µm) and the LWIR (i.e., 9.44, 12.71, and 13.70 µm)
Multispectral Canopy (Mushore et al., 2017) domains, based on a study of 13 plant species. However, a different set of
Multispectral Canopy (Acero and González- species under investigation may have resulted in different wavebands
Asensio, 2018)
being proposed. This topic was later transferred to a field experiment by
Multispectral Canopy (Bayat et al., 2018)
Multispectral Canopy (Li and Meng, 2018) Rock et al. (2016) using an imaging device setup (Schlerf et al. 2012)
Multispectral Canopy (Xie et al., 2018) that allows, in comparison to the time required when undertaking DHR
Multispectral Canopy (Zheng et al., 2018) laboratory measurements, fast acquisition of high spectral resolution
Multispectral Canopy (Yu et al., 2018) TIR images. Rock et al. (2016) demonstrated that classification accu­
Multispectral Canopy (Neinavaz et al.,
racies similar to the laboratory spectra, which outperform VNIR/SWIR
2019)
Multispectral Canopy (Hu et al., 2019) reflectance spectra in terms of classification accuracy, could be achieved
Multispectral Canopy (Neinavaz et al., with this field setup (i.e., image device). However, Rock et al. (2016)
2020) also revealed that signal to noise ratio is critical for species discrimi­
Space-borne & Multispectral & Canopy (Sobrino et al., 2008)
nation, with TIR data outperforming VNIR-SWIR only at a high signal to
Airborne Hyperspectral
Airborne Multispectral Canopy (Pierce et al., 1990)
noise ratio.
Multispectral Canopy (Schmugge et al.,
1991) 3.1.2. Leaf functional traits
Hyperspectral Canopy (Hackwell et al., Many studies have speculated about the origin of thermal absorption
1996)
features from leaf chemical compounds or leaf surface properties (Pan­
Multispectral Canopy (Hewison, 2001)
Hyperspectral Canopy (Kirkland et al., 2002) dya et al. 2013; Ribeiro da Luz and Crowley 2007). For instance, it was
Multispectral Canopy (Sobrino et al., 2002) suggested that the leaf emissivity signature might be linked to cellulous
Multispectral Canopy (Hook et al., 2005) and epidermis, as well as the uniqueness of the cuticle structure in each
Multispectral Canopy (González-Dugo et al.,
plant species (Ribeiro da Luz and Crowley 2007). Cuticle structure is
2006)
Hyperspectral Canopy (Sobrino et al., 2006)
directly related to leaf water content, while variation in cellulose is
Hyperspectral Canopy (Sepulcre-Cantó et al., associated with leaf thickness (White and Montes-R 2005). Until
2006) recently, no systematic investigation had been carried out on how
Hyperspectral Canopy (Oltra-Carrió et al., different leaf functional traits are correlated with spectral features. This
2012)
missing link was targeted by Buitrago et al. (2018), who measured the
Hyperspectral Canopy (Sobrino et al., 2012)
Multispectral & Canopy (Zarco-Tejada et al., infrared spectra (1.4–16.0 µm), as well as leaf traits (e.g., leaf water
Broadband 2013) content, leaf area, etc.) of individual fresh leaves for 19 species (from
Hyperspectral Canopy (Coutts et al., 2016) herbaceous to woody species). They found that in the MWIR and LWIR,
Multispectral Canopy (Wawrzyniak et al., leaf absorption spectra are formed by key species-specific traits,
2017)
Hyperspectral Canopy (Gerhards et al., 2018)
including lignin, cellulose, water, nitrogen, and leaf thickness.
&Thermocouples Meerdink et al. (2016) compared VNIR/SWIR and TIR spectra using
Hyperspectral Canopy (Gomis-Cebolla et al., PLSR to retrieve leaf-level cellulose, lignin, leaf mass per area, nitrogen,
2018) and water content and obtained a higher prediction accuracy when
Hyperspectral Leaf & (Meerdink et al.,
combining VNIR/SWIR with TIR data. Another important finding of
Canopy 2019a)
Airborne & Hyperspectral Leaf & (Ribeiro da Luz and their study was that seasonal variations, as well as variation in leaf
Laboratory Canopy Crowley, 2010) structure, resulted in low performance regarding the prediction of lignin
Hyperspectral Leaf & (Meerdink et al., and leaf mass per area (Meerdink et al. 2016).
Canopy 2016)
UAV Multispectral Canopy (Berni et al., 2009)
Broadband Canopy (Gonzalez-Dugo et al.,
3.1.3. Leaf water content and water stress
2013) High spectral resolution TIR laboratory measurements have been
Broadband Canopy (Sagan et al., 2019) leveraged to quantify leaf water content using various methods (Fabre
Broadband Canopy (Liu et al., 2018) et al. 2011; Meerdink et al. 2016; Ullah et al. 2014). Despite the broad

4
E. Neinavaz et al.
Fig. 1. Percentage of vegetation studies using thermal infrared remote sensing data per sensor (a) and the focus of the studies (b) in the past seven decades.
investigation into the retrieval of leaf water content using remotely
sensed data in the VNIR and SWIR regions, the prediction of water
content through TIR hyperspectral data has only recently been consid­
ered. Findings have shown that leaf water content can be retrieved with
moderate accuracy using TIR hyperspectral data and laboratory condi­
tions (Ullah et al. 2012a; Ullah et al. 2014).
Deriving plant temperature from TIR measurements has been used
successfully to detect and quantify pre-symptomatic or pre-visual water
stress in vegetation for five decades (for a comprehensive review, please
see Gerhards et al. (2019). In contrast, the second component of TIR
measurements, namely spectral emissivity, has hardly been used to
quantify water stress. Salisbury and Milton (1987) were the first to
consider the effect of water stress on plants in the TIR region. They
suggested that water stress does not affect infrared signatures. However,
Elvidge (1988) has shown that spectral changes in the TIR domain data
associated with a decline in plant health and the reflectance spectra of
dry plant materials, which are a mixture of holocellulose and lignin
reflectance features, in the absence of water as a principal constituent of
green leaves.
Additionally, the emissivity values of spectra from dry and senescent
5
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 102 (2021) 102415
crops in the LWIR region are considerably lower than the ones from well-
watered and green vegetation in the other parts of the TIR region (i.e.,
between 8 and 13 μm) (Olioso et al. 2007). In this respect, Fabre et al.
(2011) found that the reflectance response to water stress (i.e., drying
impact) could, in part, be dependent on species, leaf side (i.e., adaxial or
abaxial), as well as the water content in the 3–15 μm range. Also, the
reflectance spectra of wavelengths greater than 10 μm are less sensitive
to the difference in leaf water content (Fabre et al., 2011). The links
between spectral features and leaf water content are less strong in the
TIR domain than in the VNIR-SWIR region as the TIR domain’s spectral
features are mainly associated with leaf structure and biochemical
composition (Gerber et al., 2011).
Different plant species displayed substantial changes in their TIR
emissivity spectra when exposed to either water or temperature stress
(Buitrago et al. 2016). In an experiment on potato, where different
spectral domains were compared for their sensitivity to water stress, TIR
spectral emissivity responded more quickly to water stress than VNIR
and SWIR indices such as NDVI or PRI (Gerhards et al. 2016). Changes in
emissivity spectra under stress conditions may be related to a change in
the thickness of the cuticle and, conceivably, the structure of the cuticle
E. Neinavaz et al. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 102 (2021) 102415

Table 3 mesophyll) were not linked to the TIR emissivity spectra. For instance,
The terminologies and abbreviations, which are used in the study. under stress, cuticle thickness has been increased as a coping strategy to
No. Nomenclatures Abbreviation prevent water loss. Additionally, the variation in thickness is attributed
to lignin and cellulose content changes, which are associated with
1 Thermal Infrared TIR
2 Mid-wave Infrared MWIR changes in spectra. Gerhards et al. (2016) have shown that under water
3 Long-wave Infrared LWIR stress, the emissivity spectra increase consistently for overall spectral
4 Visible-near Infrared VNIR bands, while the spectral shape remains unchanged.
5 Short-wave Infrared SWIR
6 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index NDVI
7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA
3.2. Canopy laboratory and field studies
8 Advanced Very High-Resolution Radiometer AVHRR
9 Earth Radiation Budget Experiment ERBE Laboratory/field level studies demonstrate the successful application
10 Environmental Satellite Envisat of TIR emissivity spectra to study leaf characteristics. However, due to
11 Advanced Along-Track Scanning Radiometer AATSR
the limitation such as low signal to noise ratio, they may not be trans­
12 Sea and Land Surface Temperature Radiometer SLSTR
13 Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer MODIS lated into canopy scale without the possibility of using airborne- or
14 Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection ASTER spaceborne remote sensing platforms. In general, the emissivity value at
Radiometer the canopy level is higher than for any separate part of the plant due to
15 Thermal Infrared Sensor TIRS
plant structure and the cavity effect (Rubio et al. 1997). The cavity effect
16 Enhanced Thematic Mapper ETM+
17 Thematic Mapper TM
might increase the emissivity value for erectophile canopy by 0.030 and
18 International Space Station ISS spherical and planophile by 0.026 and 0.022, respectively, according to
19 ECOsystem Space-borne Thermal Radiometer Experiment ECOSTRESS data simulation (Olioso 1995b). Nevertheless, in order to avoid an un­
on Space Station derestimation of the emissivity value, in particular for intermediate
20 Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite VIIRS
vegetation cover (i.e., 40–60% vegetation cover), the cavity effect
21 Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership Suomi NPP
22 Meteosat Visible and Infrared Imager MVIRI should be taken into consideration at the canopy level (Jacob et al.
23 Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager SEVIRI 2017). Emissivity responds to geometry and patterns between plant
24 Multi-functional Transport Satellites MTSAT canopies. Therefore, the effect of the vegetation geometric structure and
25 Bi-Spectral Infrared Detection BIRD canopy components on the TIR data should always be considered in the
26 Hot Spot Recognition Sensor HSRS
27 Technologie Erprobungs Träger-1 TET-1
upscaling of the emissivity from leaf to canopy level. Consequently, the
28 Bi-spectral InfraRed Optical System BIROS emissivity of dense canopies is higher than the emissivity of an indi­
29 European Remote-Sensing Satellite-1 ERS-1 vidual leaf (Rubio et al. 1997). This difference may influence the shape
30 Along Track Scanning Radiometer-1 ATSR-1 of emissivity features or even cancel them out (Fuchs and Tanner 1966;
31 Advance Land Observing Satellite-2 ALOS-2
Rubio et al. 1997). The emissivity value of green and senescent vege­
32 Second Generation Global Imager SGLI
33 Global Change Observation Mission-Climate GCOM-C1 tation is higher at canopy level compared to leaf level (Palluconi et al.
34 Compact Infrared Camera CIRC 1990).
35 Advanced Baseline Imager ABI The progressive attenuation of spectral emissivity has been evi­
36 Visible and Thermal Infrared Radiometer VTIR denced by the increasing distance between vegetation canopy and
37 Marine Observation Satellite-1 MOS-1
38 Multispectral Thermal Imager MTI
sensor, which leads to fewer details to be captured (Ribeiro da Luz and
39 Visible and IR Radiometer VIRR Crowley 2007). The overall value of canopy emissivity spectra increases
40 Thermal Infrared Multispectral Scanner TIMS concomitantly with the LAI values, while the spectral features remain
41 Digital Airborne Imaging Spectrometer DAIS similar under laboratory-controlled conditions (Neinavaz et al. 2016a;
42 Airborne Hyperspectral Scanner AHS
Neinavaz et al. 2016c). The canopy emissivity spectra reach saturation
43 Thermal Airborne Spectrographic Imager-600 TASI-600
44 Hyper-Cam Long Wave Hyper-Cam at a relatively high LAI value. However, the level of saturation is species-
LW specific (Neinavaz et al. 2016a) and can also be influenced by the
45 Spatially Enhanced Broadband Array Spectrograph System SEBASS viewing direction, canopy structure, as well as tempretaure distribution
46 Hyper-Spectral Thermal Emission Spectrometer HyTES within the canopy (Guillevic et al. 2003). The saturation level for
47 Airborne Terrestrial Applications Sensor ATLAS
48 Advanced Himawari Imager AHI
emissivity rises from the planophile to the erectophile canopy structure
49 The Micro Fourier Transform Interferometer µFTIR (Olioso 1995a). The investigation using TIR data also demonstrated that
50 Photochemical Reflectance Index PRI soil emissivity as a background varies according to the surface compo­
51 Vapor Pressure Day VPD sition and roughness (Salisbury and D’Aria 1992). The effect of soil
52 Stress Degree Day SDD
emissivity as a background should be taken into account when the LAI
53 Crop Water Stress Index CWSI
54 Standard Deviation of Canopy Temperature CTSD value is low, as soil emissivity is likely to have the same effect on canopy
55 Landsat- Operational Land Imager Landsat-OLI emissivity when NDVI is low (Olioso 1995b). Under some circum­
56 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UAV stances, such as when plants are dry, the emissivity of plants is expected
57 Leaf Area Index LAI to be lower than that of bare soil. Consequently, plant emissivity might
58 Land Surface Temperature LST
59 Land Surface Emissivity LSE
decrease when the vegetation amount increases (Olioso et al. 2007).
60 Kelvin K Moreover, canopy emissivity spectra of various plants with similar LAI
61 Light Detection and Ranging LiDAR values are varying and species-specific. Such a variation might be
62 Thermal-Scattering by Arbitrarily Inclined Leaves TIR-SAIL explained by the contribution of other vegetation biophysical or
63 Discrete anisotropic radiative transfer DART
biochemical parameters (Neinavaz et al. 2016a).
64 Ocean Surface Temperature OST
65 Temperature Emissivity Separation TES
4. Scaling vegetation variables up from laboratory to
spaceborne and airborne levels
(Buitrago et al. 2016). In a successive study by Buitrago et al. (2017), it
has been shown that stress (i.e., water and temperature) can change leaf Previously, a high correlation has been found between emissivity
traits (e.g., leaf water content, lignin, cellulose, and leaf area) and thus spectra and NDVI after logarithmic transformation (Valor and Caselles
have an effect on the TIR emissivity spectra. In contrast, the internal leaf 1996; Van de Griend and Owe 1993). However, Later, Gieske et al.
structural variables (e.g., bundle area, height, width, epidermis, and (2004) discussed that the relationship between NDVI and emissivity

6
E. Neinavaz et al.
only applies in specific ecosystems and under particular climatic con­
ditions, such as urban heat islands (Kumar and Shekhar 2015) and
contexts, such as built-up areas, farmland, grassland, forest and water
landcover classes (Xie et al. 2018). The emissivity can reach a saturation
level using satellite data when LAI is low (i.e., two or three LAI values).
This issue must be taken into account when the LAI is required for
upscaling vegetation variables. However, the level of saturation may
vary depending on the plant species as well as the canopy structure
(Carlson et al. 1994). An increase in the canopy emissivity spectra is
expected when LAI values rise as background soil emissivity has a lower
emissivity than the leaves (Francois et al. 1997). Therefore, the emis­
sivity of a densely vegetated area (i.e., LAI > 2) has a higher value than
the bare soil (Jin and Liang 2006). Meanwhile, soil water content should
also be taken into account as the soil emissivity tends to increase from
1.7% to 16% when the soil water content increases (Mira et al. 2007).
Therefore, the systematic error of 0.1–2 K can be caused by affecting soil
emissivity through soil water content (Mira et al. 2007). However, the
effect of canopy geometry would be minimized by increasing the LAI
value as the ground emission contribution decreases (Guillevic et al.
2003) (Fig. 2).
4.1. Emissivity spectra for plant characteristics using airborne TIR data
A few studies have been conducted using TIR airborne data for
vegetation research. Due to the lack of proper sensors, there were no
commercial airborne TIR data available till 1990 (Table.2). It was
assumed that using airborne data, water and fully vegetated surfaces
exhibit little or no variation in their emissivity spectra compared to bare
soil (Schmugge et al. 1991). Nonetheless, the emissivity spectra were
found to be associated with the vegetation cover, which allows different
types of land cover (e.g., boreal forest, agricultural, etc.) to be detected
(Hewison 2001). For the first time, Ribeiro da Luz and Crowley (2010)
identified nearly half of the fifty tree species they examined using
airborne hyperspectral TIR data with varying degrees of success. They
also discussed that leaf angle distribution and size and canopy structure
could affect the emissivity spectra contrast among species. Their work,
which used hyperspectral TIR data to investigate plant characterization
at canopy level based on airborne data, can be regarded as a ground-
breaking study. Meerdink et al. (2019) demonstrated a significant dif­
ference between the canopy emissivity of ten of the 24 species they
examined using airborne hyperspectral TIR data from wavelengths of
8.3–11 μm. However, for most investigated species, the emissivity of the
canopy was not representative of the emissivity of the leaves due to the
Fig. 2. The effect of leaf orientation on a crop’s apparent temperature and
representation of different leaf angle distribution (LAD) for spherical, plano­
phile, and erectophile canopy (Guillevic et al., 2003).
7
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 102 (2021) 102415
influence of the canopy structure and leaf orientation. Nevertheless, leaf
emissivity was distinctive and separable by spectral form and a few
significantly different wavelengths for 80% of the plant species studied
by (Meerdink et al. 2019).
4.2. LSE and LST for plant characteristics using spaceborne TIR data
As previously stated, emissivity responds to geometry and patterns
between plant canopies. As a result, it was assumed that emissivity
variation over persistent vegetation is low within the course of a year.
Thus the emissivity values at the satellite level are less likely to represent
seasonal changes over the vegetation area. In contrast, the difference
between years is considered to be substantial, as the distribution pat­
terns of plants vary due to multi-scattering effects at satellite level for
periods of more than one year (French et al. 2008). Cheng et al. (2015)
proposed a new method to assess seasonal variations in vegetation
canopies using broadband emissivity spectra.
A review of the literature showed that a majority of investigations
into vegetation using spaceborne data focused on the calculation of LST
and LSE (Gomis-Cebolla et al. 2018; Göttsche and Hulley 2012; Jacob
et al. 2017; Jiménez-Muñoz et al. 2006; Li et al. 2013; Zheng et al.
2018). Experimental and modelling studies have shown that LSE in­
creases with vegetation abundance (Olioso et al. 2007; Sobrino et al.
2005). In this respect, the land cover types characterized by vegetation
abundance demonstrate higher LSE values (Stathopoulou and Cartalis
2007). The mean emissivity values in agriculture and forest ecosystems
ranged from 0.975 ± 0.003 to 0.980 ± 0.004, respectively (Stathopou­
lou et al. 2007). Despite a positive correlation between LSE and NDVI
(Sobrino et al. 2008), only a weak negative correlation was identified
between LST and NDVI (Kumar and Shekhar 2015; Zhang et al. 2009).
However, although there is consensus on the correlation between NDVI
and LST being negative, discrepancies have been found in the strength
with certain studies reporting a strong negative correlation between
NDVI and LST (Chaithanya et al. 2017; Rehman et al. 2015). Still, the
relation between LAI and LSE is much stronger than between LAI and
LST (Neinavaz et al. 2019).
The effect of vegetation cover and structure on LST and LSE over an
urban area have been extensively documented in comparison to vege­
tation cover in natural ecosystems by means of TIR data (Acero and
González-Asensio 2018; Amiri et al. 2009; Coutts et al. 2016; Li and
Meng 2018; Oltra-Carrió et al. 2012; Sobrino et al. 2012; Weng et al.
2004; Yu et al. 2018; Zhou et al. 2011). The negative correlation be­
tween NDVI and LST has been reported for urban vegetation (Kumar and
Shekhar 2015). However, the strength of the correlation between LST
and NDVI associated with land-use types may vary (Yue et al. 2007). For
instance, it was found that LST and NDVI have a stronger correlation for
dense vegetation compared with sparse vegetation (e.g., grass and park)
area (Mallick et al. 2008). Additionally, it has been shown that the
spatial configuration of green space has a significant impact on the LST
over urban areas (Maimaitiyiming et al. 2014). Changes in land use (e.g.,
dense to sparse vegetation) in urban areas are also a significant factor for
increasing LST (Jiang and Tian 2010).
4.3. Water stress and canopy temperature using spaceborne and airborne
data
TIR data have been widely used for deriving canopy temperature as
an indicator of water stress, canopy conductance, and transpiration for
irrigation scheduling (Gonzalez-Dugo et al. 2013; Idso 1982; Sepulcre-
Cantó et al. 2006). Bartholic et al. (1972) revealed the feasibility of
using the airborne-mounted thermal scanner for deriving crop canopy
temperature over a large area under different irrigation treatments. Leaf
energy balance has been considered a basis for monitoring plant re­
sponses to water deficit and detecting pre-visual water stress using TIR
data (Fuchs and Tanner 1966; Tanner 1963). In order to retrieve canopy
temperature, meteorological parameters (e.g., air temperature,
E. Neinavaz et al.
humidity, wind speed, etc.), as well as the position of leaves within the
canopy (e.g., inclination and orientation of leaves), should be taken into
account as they can lead to considerable variation in leaf temperature
and may mask any indication of water stress (Maes and Steppe 2012).
Several temperature-based indices have been developed to normalize
leaf temperatures to current environmental conditions for a more
quantitative estimation of water stress. Initially, differences between
canopy- and air temperatures were considered the first indicators of crop
water stress, namely SDD (Idso et al. 1977). A further improvement was
the now well-known CWSI (Idso et al. 1981; Jackson et al. 1981). Among
other approaches (see Maes and Steppe 2012), which depend on addi­
tional micro-meteorological data, the use of artificial reference surfaces
appears to be most appropriate, as no supplementary data are needed
(Jones 2004; Maes and Steppe 2012; Maes et al. 2016). However, the
application of these reference surfaces is challenging for airborne and
satellite missions (Jones et al. 2009) in terms of handling them in the
field (i.e., the dimension of the targets), as well as the selection of their
material (i.e., aerodynamic and optical characteristics). Meron et al.
(2003) suggested that dry and wet reference surfaces could be replaced
by more considerable wet references. The Water Deficit Index developed
by Moran et al. (1994) and the thermal index of relative stomatal
conductance (Jones 1999) is alternative temperature-based indices that
take into account partially vegetated sites and showed a direct linear
relationship between canopy temperature and stomatal conductance.
Tormann (1986) suggested that the effect of environmental condi­
tions on water stress and the comparative difference in canopy tem­
perature between the dry (stressed) and wet (non-stressed) treatment
are negligible. Water stress raises the temperature of the leaf (Blum et al.
1982) and expands the range of temperature variation within the can­
opy, which can be used as a stress indicator (Fuchs and Tanner 1966).
Besides, the thermal variations within the canopy are associated with
water stress and thus could be used for water stress detection at the tree
level, based on TIR imagery data (Sepulcre-Cantó et al. 2006). The CTSD
was successfully applied to evaluate water stress in crops. The results
showed that this index has a strong potential for monitoring water stress
in crops since it only depends on the canopy temperature (Han et al.
2016). The CTSD outperformed the CWSI for monitoring moderately
stressed crops within the field (González-Dugo et al. 2006).
The relation between TIR data and water status over time could be
considered as a short-term response in comparison with vegetation
indices derived using VNIR/SWIR data (Baluja et al. 2012) since there is
a strong correlation between thermal indices and leaf stomatal
conductance, and stem water potential, which response quickly after
early stress exposure (Baluja et al. 2012). In this regard, it has been
shown that the combination of vegetation indices, such as NDVI, and TIR
indices-based models, outperforms vegetation indices alone (Leroux
et al. 2015). In contrast, it had previously been revealed that there is no
relation between canopy temperature and NDVI and that instead, the
differences in canopy conductance and water stress could affect canopy
temperature (Berni et al. 2009). Nonetheless, the impact of the canopy
structure and view angles on canopy temperature should have been
taken into account (Hu et al. 2019; Jones et al. 2009). In addition, the
normalized relative canopy temperature is associated closely and
significantly with canopy water content and relative water content
under arid and semi-arid conditions using hyperspectral VNIR/SWIR
data and thermal imaging data (Elsayed et al. 2017). Banerjee et al.
(2018) demonstrated that the mean canopy temperature is raised with
increasing moisture stress levels during various crop growth stages.
They showed the efficiency of using thermal images compared to digital
images for discriminating between leaves and soil under different
moisture stress conditions. In summary, temperature-based indices have
an enormous potential for pre-visual detection of plant water stress and
have, therefore, been applied in agricultural research and practice
(Khanal et al. 2017). Additionally, Liu et al. (2018) discovered a dif­
ference in canopy temperature between lodging and non-lodging agri­
cultural areas using UAV data, with lodged areas having a higher canopy
8
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 102 (2021) 102415
temperature. It was also revealed by Sagan et al. (2019) that thermal
infrared imagery obtained from UAV is efficent for plant phenotyping.
5. Prediction of vegetation biophysical and biochemical
variables
LAI, one of the most important vegetation biophysical parameters,
has been widely investigated using data from VNIR/SWIR regions. It has
also been successfully retrieved using hyperspectral TIR data under
controlled laboratory conditions applying various vegetation indices
and a non-parametric statistical approach (Neinavaz et al. 2016b). The
results of Neinavaz et al. (2016c) showed that LAI might be successfully
retrieved at the high value of approximately 5.5 while incurring less
saturation issues by using VNIR/SWIR data. The LAI of wheat was
accurately derived using TIR data under different moisture stress con­
ditions using thermal imaging (Banerjee et al. 2018). In addition, a
combination of LSE and spectral reflectance from VNIR and SWIR could
boost the retrieval accuracy of LAI (R2CV = 0.81, RMSECV = 0.63,
m2m− 2) in mixed temperate forest (Neinavaz et al. 2019). The nature of
the TIR data could explain these results as it is species-specific for
vegetation. The possibility of retrieval of the leaf water content has also
been investigated using data from the MWIR to LWIR regions (Ullah
et al. 2012a). However, Ullah et al. (2014) demonstrated that the MWIR
and SWIR regions seem to be more sensitive spectral regions than the
LWIR domain concerning the retrieval of leaf water content as the
fundamental water absorption features lie in the MWIR region and not in
the LWIR region. The fuel moisture content and equivalent water
thickness as a mass-based and area-based vegetation water content in­
dicator could also be predicted at canopy level using hyperspectral TIR
data. In addition, plant mass may play a more significant role in deter­
mining spectral emissivity than plant area (Neinavaz et al. 2017).
Moreover, the integration of TIR data and VNIR/SWIR data could
improve the prediction accuracy of foliar traits, including cellulose,
lignin, leaf mass per area, nitrogen, as well as water content (Meerdink
et al. 2016).
6. Challenges on using TIR data for vegetation studies
The primary issue regarding the use of TIR remotely sensed data for
vegetation studies is the scaling up from leaf to canopy level as well as
from laboratory to spaceborne and airborne levels. The limited TIR data
available for laboratory and airborne studies, as well as their spatial
resolution, are still major limitations for the use of TIR satellite data,
though this might be addressed by the future Copernicus candidate
mission LSTM and the SBG mission. Additionally, despite generating a
very high-resolution image, the UAV platforms have a limitation on
having a broadband TIR sensor. Another concern is the lack of access to
the hyperspectral TIR data and the availability of only a limited number
of wavebands (i.e., Multispectral) in the TIR domain at space-based
platforms with coarse resolution (e.g., 100 m–1 km). Consequently,
practical and reliable approaches such as TES (Gillespie et al. 1998)
cannot be applied to calculate LST or LSE. As a result, only simple sta­
tistical methods, such as the NDVI threshold method, can be used to
estimate LST and LSE, where only one or two TIR wavebands are
available. Although the NDVI threshold method appears to hold well
over fully vegetated areas, it is not feasible for urban areas or areas
partially covered by snow, ice, and rock. Besides, the uncertainty in the
prediction accuracy of fractional vegetation cover, one of the required
parameters for this method, might affect the LSE prediction accuracy
(Neinavaz et al., 2020).
A few challenges, such as the distance between sensor and target (i.
e., plant), as well as the signal to noise ratio, has been addressed in
different studies and should also be taken into account in addition to
challenges including separation of emissivity and temperature using
spaceborne and airborne platforms (Sobrino et al. 2008; Sobrino et al.
2002). Progressive attenuation could occur through an increasing
E. Neinavaz et al.
distance between sensor and plant, and the emissivity features could
become weaker or disappear, which may prove insurmountable for
airborne and potential spaceborne applications (Ribeiro da Luz and
Crowley 2007). Moreover, the signal-to-noise ratio has a considerable
impact on the discrimination of plant TIR spectra (Rock et al. 2016). The
retrieval of the LST and LSE using the TES method over terrestrial eco­
systems, where emissivity is unknown in advance, can be solved by
separating emissivity and temperature. However, the main limitations of
’TES’ performance, as mentioned, include the availability of thermal
band numbers (e.g., more than five bands), as well as accurate elimi­
nation of atmospheric effects, such as path radiance and atmospheric
transmissivity.
It should be noted that a 1% uncertainty in prediction accuracy of the
emissivity may result in an LST calculation error of roughly 0.5 K for
moderate (Li et al. 2013) and approximately 1 K for warmer, less humid
environmental conditions (Chen et al. 2016). In addition, water vapour
over the non-arid region or under humid atmospheric conditions may
affect the quality of emissivity data as temperature errors of more than
− 0.8 K or +2.3 K were reported precipitable water vapour exceeded
three cm (Ogawa et al. 2008; Tonooka and Palluconi 2005). There are
several approaches available to address atmospheric correction and to
remove the atmospheric water vapour effect. However, this requires the
input of several data, such as atmospheric profiles of water vapour
content and air temperature, that can be obtained from metrological
stations or datahubs (e.g., the European centre for medium-range
weather forecasts, ECMWF), though these data are considered to be
relatively coarse. Also, the uncertainty and error that could arise from
soil water content on emissivity spectra should be considered a chal­
lenge for LSE and LST estimation (Mira et al. 2007).
Despite a few attempts to link emissivity features with chemical traits
at the leaf level and under laboratory-controlled conditions (Buitrago
et al. 2018), leaf surface properties are not yet well explored over the
TIR domain, and more research needs to be done, particularly at canopy
level. In addition, though it has been demonstrated that the emissivity of
the vegetation canopy depends on canopy structure (i.e., distribution of
elementary surface temperature) and canopy architecture (i.e., the
proportion of sunlit and shaded areas, etc.), the effect of canopy struc­
ture on canopy temperature (Kimes 1980), and canopy emissivity
(Francois et al. 1997; Guillevic et al. 2003) have barely been addressed
by means of spaceborne or airborne TIR data. Therefore, further
research is crucial to explore the effect of canopy structure and archi­
tecture on the cavity effect and emissivity spectra using airborne and
spaceborne platforms in different environments and considering various
scenarios. In addition, the lack of practical approaches that can make use
of synergies between TIR, VNIR/SWIR, and solar-induced chlorophyll
fluorescence (i.e., SIF) data to better understand plant stress, distur­
bance and disease, etc., are also evident, despite the successful fusion of
TIR data with data from different remote sensing sources and domains.
Furthermore, direct comparisons of in situ measurements and LST
predicted from the satellite images for densely vegetated areas still form
a challenging task, given that the temporal variation and high spatial
heterogeneity of the LST limit ground-based validation (Hook et al.
2005; Hook et al. 2003; Hook et al. 2007).
7. Outlook on the TIR remote sensing sensors and platforms
Timely and accurate monitoring of vegetated areas is important for
understanding the spatial and temporal dynamics in terrestrial ecosys­
tems. The past two decades have seen an increase in the use of remote
sensing studies and applications for the retrieval and assessment of
vegetation biophysical and biochemical parameters. Nevertheless,
remote sensing studies of vegetation using TIR data are not in an
advanced stage, if not in their initial phase. In general, the number of
satellites that carry TIR sensors is far outnumbered by those possessing
VNIR/SWIR channels. The first satellite with a TIR sensor onboard was
launched in 1982 (i.e., Landsat-4). Landsat-5-TM data was one of the
9
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 102 (2021) 102415
most widely used for environmental studies, particularly for the esti­
mation of the LST and LSE (Sobrino et al. 2004), as its lifespan far
exceeded its original mission (i.e., three years) and at the time of the
Landsat-5 decommissioning, Landsat-7 and 8 were already in orbit.
ASTER also obtained TIR data for almost nine years until it was deemed
non-operational in 2009. With a spatial resolution of 90 m and five TIR
wavebands, ASTER was widely used to provide detailed maps for LST,
LSE, and OST (Table 1). By the time we are, Landsat-8 are (100 m res­
olution), and ECOSTRESS with five TIR spectral bands (approximately
60 m resolution) are the only high-resolution multispectral TIR radi­
ometer deployed on the spaceborne platform (i.e., International Space
Station). For instance, Landsat-8 TIRS (100 m spatial resolution, 16-days
revisit), as an operational space platform possessing TIR bands, is
insufficient for meeting the needs of precision agriculture (Mahlein,
2016) or for monitoring of other green ecosystems. As far as spectral
resolution is concerned, most TIR sensors for detecting water stress are
broadband sensors (Grant et al. 2006a; Grant et al. 2012; Grant et al.
2006b; Jones et al. 2009; Zarco-Tejada et al. 2013). These sensors are
based on the unrealistic assumption of a constant emissivity value (e.g.,
0.97 for vegetation). Neglecting the variation in spectral emissivity of
vegetation causes errors in temperature estimation by several degrees
Kelvin (Jones 2004), which leads to errors in crop model irrigation
systems. On the other hand, nowadays, the availability of airborne
hyperspectral TIR data for vegetation studies is noticeably more signif­
icant than ever, though still at a high cost.
We are confident that the new hyperspectral TIR sensors on airborne
and UAV platforms will provide opportunities for more precise emis­
sivity data as well as surface temperature estimation and result in
potentially ground-breaking vegetation studies. They would bridge the
gap between low-resolution satellite data and in situ small-scale spec­
trometry measurements (Gerhards et al. 2018). Airborne and space­
borne TIR hyperspectral applications in vegetation studies and, in
particular, in climate change studies will continue and progress in the
future. Ultimately, the need for continuously mapping the Earth at short
intervals with large and fine-scale TIR data for vegetation applications
might encourage the ongoing efforts in developing high-end sensors and
monitoring platforms.
8. Conclusion
Using remote sensing TIR data to understand and retrieve structure
and function of terrestrial vegetation is challenging. When researching
the literature for this study, we came across very few studies that had
used TIR hyperspectral remote sensing data to characterize and classify
vegetation land cover. This suggests that slow progress in TIR remote
sensing for vegetation studies may be due to technical limitations
associated with low image resolution. TIR satellite sensors are limited in
terms of spatial, temporal, and spectral resolution (Table 1).
The majority of vegetation studies using hyperspectral TIR data were
conducted at the leaf level and under laboratory conditions. However,
only a few studies performed at the canopy level due to the difficulties in
scaling up between the emissivity of leaf and canopy. Therefore, the
need for further research of TIR remote sensing data (i.e., Hyperspectral
TIR) at canopy level, with upscaling to landscape ecological research, is
required as higher resolution (spatial, spectral, temporal) spaceborne
imagery becomes available (Table.1).
Nearly all experiments that focused on upscaling from leaf to canopy
level or laboratory to spaceborne and/or airborne level have concluded
that canopy structure, leaf orientation, soil moisture content, and water
vapour are significant factors determining the TIR response, specifically
for emissivity spectra estimation and the computation of LST and LSE. In
addition, during our literature review, some immaturity were observed
in the results obtained under various environmental conditions, which
need to be addressed in future studies. Few approaches are mature
enough to estimate LSE and LST for vegetated areas in an operational
context, as only a few bands are available. Remarkably, a number of
E. Neinavaz et al.
studies, particularly at the laboratory level, included the emissivity
spectra between 5 and 8 µm of the electromagnetic spectrum in their
analysis, indicating that the effect of water absorption in this atmo­
spheric window was not considered.
Recent studies found that the integration of TIR data with data from
different spectral domains (e.g., VNIR and SWIR) could improve the
prediction accuracy of vegetation biophysical and biochemical param­
eters (e.g., LAI) (Neinavaz et al. 2019), as well as retrieval of the foliar
traits such as cellulose, lignin, leaf mass per area, nitrogen, and water
content (Meerdink et al. 2016). In addition, it can also be useful for
urban landscape classification (Mushore et al. 2017), discriminating
between tropical soil (i.e., bare soil) and non-photosynthetic vegetation
(Breunig et al. 2009), capture drought effects in daily ecosystem func­
tions (Bayat et al. 2018), as well as quantifying the thermal effect of
riparian during low flow conditions (Wawrzyniak et al. 2017). However,
there is a little investigation into data fusion of TIR data from other parts
of the electromagnetic spectrum, especially for vegetation studies.
We did not discuss technical approaches (e.g., physical or empirical
methods) to retrieve vegetation biophysical and biochemical parameters
using TIR data. However, we note that there are a few studies on this
topic. For instance, though several leaf and canopy radiative transfer
models have been developed for the VNIR-SWIR domain that explicitly
links leaf optical properties and canopy characteristics to reflectance,
only two physical models exist (i.e. TIR-SAIL (Verhoef et al. 2007) and
DART (Gastellu-Etchegorry et al. 1996)) that physically explain the
driving factors of spectral emissivity. Future availability of TIR data
from spaceborne and airborne platforms will undoubtedly promote TIR
physical models for vegetation studies.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Elnaz Neinavaz: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision,
Writing - original draft. Martin Schlerf: Investigation, Writing - original
draft. Roshanak Darvishzadeh: Investigation, Writing - original draft.
Max Gerhards: Investigation, Writing - original draft. Andrew K.
Skidmore: Investigation, Writing - original draft.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Acero, J.A., González-Asensio, B., 2018. Influence of vegetation on the morning land
surface temperature in a tropical humid urban area. Urban Clim. 26, 231–243.
Amiri, R., Weng, Q., Alimohammadi, A., Alavipanah, S.K., 2009. Spatial–temporal
dynamics of land surface temperature in relation to fractional vegetation cover and
land use/cover in the Tabriz urban area, Iran. Remote Sens. Environ. 113,
2606–2617.
Angelopoulou, T., Tziolas, N., Balafoutis, A., Zalidis, G., Bochtis, D., 2019. Remote
sensing techniques for soil organic carbon estimation: a review. Remote Sensing 11,
676.
Arp, G.K., Phinney, D.E., 1980. Ecological variations in thermal infrared emissivity of
vegetation. Environ. Exp. Bot. 20 (2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-8472
(80)90006-4.
Baluja, J., Diago, M.P., Balda, P., Zorer, R., Meggio, F., Morales, F., Tardaguila, J., 2012.
Assessment of vineyard water status variability by thermal and multispectral
imagery using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Irrig. Sci. 30, 511–522.
Banerjee, K., Krishnan, P., Mridha, N., 2018. Application of thermal imaging of wheat
crop canopy to estimate leaf area index under different moisture stress conditions.
Biosyst. Eng. 166, 13–27.
Bartholic, J., Namkem, L., Wiegand, C., 1972. Aerial thermal scanner to determine
temperatures of soils and of crop canopies differing in water stress 1. Agron. J. 64,
603–608.
Bayat, B., Van Der Tol, C., Verhoef, W., 2018. Integrating satellite optical and thermal
infrared observations for improving daily ecosystem functioning estimations during
a drought episode. Remote Sens. Environ. 209, 375–394.
Berni, J.A., Zarco-Tejada, P.J., Suárez, L., Fereres, E., 2009. Thermal and narrowband
multispectral remote sensing for vegetation monitoring from an unmanned aerial
vehicle. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 47, 722–738.
10
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 102 (2021) 102415
Billings, W., Morris, R.J., 1951. Reflection of visible and infrared radiation from leaves of
different ecological groups. Am. J. Bot. 327–331.
Blum, A., Mayer, J., Gozlan, G., 1982. Infrared thermal sensing of plant canopies as a
screening technique for dehydration avoidance in wheat. Field Crops Res. 5,
137–146.
Breunig, F.M., Galvão, L.S., Formaggio, A.R., Couto, E.G., 2009. The combined use of
reflectance, emissivity and elevation Aster/Terra data for tropical soil studies.
Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 33, 1785–1794.
Buitrago Acevedo, M.F.B., Groen, T.A., Hecker, C.A., Skidmore, A.K., 2017. Identifying
leaf traits that signal stress in TIR spectra. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 125,
132–145.
Buitrago, M.F., Groen, T.A., Hecker, C.A., Skidmore, A.K., 2016. Changes in thermal
infrared spectra of plants caused by temperature and water stress. ISPRS J.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. 111, 22–31.
Buitrago, M.F., Groen, T.A., Hecker, C.A., Skidmore, A.K., 2018. Spectroscopic
determination of leaf traits using infrared spectra. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 69,
237–250.
Carlson, T.N., Gillies, R.R., Perry, E.M., 1994. A method to make use of thermal infrared
temperature and NDVI measurements to infer surface soil water content and
fractional vegetation cover. Remote Sens. Rev. 9, 161–173.
Chaithanya, V., Binoy, B., Vinod, T., 2017. Estimation of the Relationship between urban
vegetation and land surface temperature of Calicut City and suburbs, kerala, India
using GIS and Remote Sensing data. Int. J. Adv. Remote Sens. 6, 2088–2096.
Chen, F., Yang, S., Su, Z., Wang, K., 2016. Effect of emissivity uncertainty on surface
temperature retrieval over urban areas: Investigations based on spectral libraries.
ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 114, 53–65.
Cheng, J., Liang, S., Verhoef, W., Shi, L., Liu, Q., 2015. Estimating the hemispherical
broadband longwave emissivity of global vegetated surfaces using a radiative
transfer model. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 54, 905–917.
Cho, M., Skidmore, A., Atzberger, C., 2008. Towards red-edge positions less sensitive to
canopy biophysical parameters for leaf chlorophyll estimation using properties
optique spectrales des feuilles (PROSPECT) and scattering by arbitrarily inclined
leaves (SAILH) simulated data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 29, 2241–2255.
Clevers, J.G., Kooistra, L., Schaepman, M.E., 2010. Estimating canopy water content
using hyperspectral remote sensing data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 12,
119–125.
Coutts, A.M., Harris, R.J., Phan, T., Livesley, S.J., Williams, N.S., Tapper, N.J., 2016.
Thermal infrared remote sensing of urban heat: Hotspots, vegetation, and an
assessment of techniques for use in urban planning. Remote Sens. Environ. 186,
637–651.
Darvishzadeh, R., Atzberger, C., Skidmore, A., Abkar, A., 2009. Leaf Area Index
derivation from hyperspectral vegetation indicesand the red edge position. Int. J.
Remote Sens. 30, 6199–6218.
Elsayed, S., Elhoweity, M., Ibrahim, H.H., Dewir, Y.H., Migdadi, H.M., Schmidhalter, U.,
2017. Thermal imaging and passive reflectance sensing to estimate the water status
and grain yield of wheat under different irrigation regimes. Agric. Water Manag.
189, 98–110.
Elvidge, C.D., 1988. Thermal infrared reflectance of dry plant materials: 2.5–20.0 μm.
Remote Sens. Environ. 26, 265–285.
Fabre, S., Lesaignoux, A., Olioso, A., Briottet, X., 2011. Influence of water content on
spectral reflectance of leaves in the 3–15- μm domain. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens.
Lett. 8, 143–147.
Francois, C., Ottlé, C., Prévot, L., 1997. Analytical parameterization of canopy directional
emissivity and directional radiance in the thermal infrared. Application on the
retrieval of soil and foliage temperatures using two directional measurements. Int. J.
Remote Sens. 18, 2587–2621.
French, A.N., Schmugge, T.J., Kustas, W.P., 2000. Discrimination of senescent vegetation
using thermal emissivity contrast. Remote Sens. Environ. 74 (2), 249–254. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(00)00115-2.
French, A., Schmugge, T., Ritchie, J., Hsu, A., Jacob, F., Ogawa, K., 2008. Detecting land
cover change at the Jornada Experimental Range, New Mexico with ASTER
emissivities. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 1730–1748.
Fuchs, M., Tanner, C., 1966. Infrared Thermometry of Vegetation 1. Agron. J. 58,
597–601.
Gastellu-Etchegorry, J.-P., Demarez, V., Pinel, V., Zagolski, F., 1996. Modeling radiative
transfer in heterogeneous 3-D vegetation canopies. Remote Sens. Environ. 58,
131–156.
Gates, D.M., Tantraporn, W., 1952. The reflectivity of deciduous trees and herbaceous
plants in the infrared to 25 microns. Science 115, 613–616.
Gerber, F., Marion, R., Olioso, A., Jacquemoud, S., Da Luz, B.R., Fabre, S., 2011.
Modeling directional–hemispherical reflectance and transmittance of fresh and dry
leaves from 0.4 μm to 5.7 μm with the PROSPECT-VISIR model. Remote Sens.
Environ. 115 (2), 404–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.09.011.
Gerhards, M., Schlerf, M., Mallick, K., Udelhoven, T., 2019. Challenges and future
perspectives of multi-/Hyperspectral thermal infrared remote sensing for crop water-
stress detection: a review. Remote Sensing 11, 1240.
Gerhards, M., Schlerf, M., Rascher, U., Udelhoven, T., Juszczak, R., Alberti, G.,
Miglietta, F., Inoue, Y., 2018. Analysis of airborne optical and thermal imagery for
detection of water stress symptoms. Remote Sensing 10, 1139.
Gieske, A.S., Wubett, M.T., Timmermans, W.J., Parodi, G.N., Wolski, P., Arneth, A.,
2004. Temperature-Emissivity Separation with ASTER and LANDSAT 7 Validation
on the fringe of the Okavango Delta, Botswana. In: Remote Sensing for Agriculture,
Ecosystems, and Hydrology V. International Society for Optics and Photonics,
pp. 489–498.
Gillespie, A., Rokugawa, S., Matsunaga, T., Cothern, J.S., Hook, S., Kahle, A.B., 1998.
A temperature and emissivity separation algorithm for Advanced Spaceborne
E. Neinavaz et al.
Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) images. IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens. 36, 1113–1126.
Gomis-Cebolla, J., Jimenez, J.C., Sobrino, J.A., 2018. LST retrieval algorithm adapted to
the Amazon evergreen forests using MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 204,
401–411.
González-Dugo, M., Moran, M., Mateos, L., Bryant, R., 2006. Canopy temperature
variability as an indicator of crop water stress severity. Irrig. Sci. 24, 233.
Gonzalez-Dugo, V., Zarco-Tejada, P., Nicolás, E., Nortes, P., Alarcón, J., Intrigliolo, D.,
Fereres, E., 2013. Using high resolution UAV thermal imagery to assess the
variability in the water status of five fruit tree species within a commercial orchard.
Precis. Agric. 14, 660–678.
Göttsche, F.-M., Hulley, G.C., 2012. Validation of six satellite-retrieved land surface
emissivity products over two land cover types in a hyper-arid region. Remote Sens.
Environ. 124, 149–158.
Grant, O.M., Chaves, M.M., Jones, H.G., 2006a. Optimizing thermal imaging as a
technique for detecting stomatal closure induced by drought stress under greenhouse
conditions. Physiol. Plant. 127, 507–518.
Grant, O.M., Davies, M.J., James, C.M., Johnson, A.W., Leinonen, I., Simpson, D.W.,
2012. Thermal imaging and carbon isotope composition indicate variation amongst
strawberry (Fragaria× ananassa) cultivars in stomatal conductance and water use
efficiency. Environ. Exp. Bot. 76, 7–15.
Grant, O.M., Tronina, Ł., Jones, H.G., Chaves, M.M., 2006b. Exploring thermal imaging
variables for the detection of stress responses in grapevine under different irrigation
regimes. J. Exp. Bot. 58, 815–825.
Guillevic, P., Gastellu-Etchegorry, J., Demarty, J., Prévot, L., 2003. Thermal infrared
radiative transfer within three-dimensional vegetation covers. J. Geophys. Res.:
Atmos. 108.
Han, M., Zhang, H., DeJonge, K.C., Comas, L.H., Trout, T.J., 2016. Estimating maize
water stress by standard deviation of canopy temperature in thermal imagery. Agric.
Water Manag. 177, 400–409.
Hecker, C., Hook, S., Meijde, M.v.d., Bakker, W., Werff, H.v.d., Wilbrink, H.,
Ruitenbeek, F.v., Smeth, B.D., Meer, F.v.d., 2011. Thermal infrared spectrometer for
earth science remote sensing applications—Instrument modifications and
measurement procedures. Sensors 11, 10981–10999.
Hewison, T.J., 2001. Airborne measurements of forest and agricultural land surface
emissivity at millimeter wavelengths. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 39,
393–400.
Hook, S.J., Clodius, W.B., Balick, L., Alley, R.E., Abtahi, A., Richards, R.C., Schladow, S.
G., 2005. In-flight validation of mid-and thermal infrared data from the
Multispectral Thermal Imager (MTI) using an automated high-altitude validation site
at Lake Tahoe CA/NV, USA. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 43, 1991–1999.
Hook, S.J., Prata, F.J., Alley, R.E., Abtahi, A., Richards, R.C., Schladow, S.G.,
Pálmarsson, S., 2003. Retrieval of lake bulk and skin temperatures using Along-
Track Scanning Radiometer (ATSR-2) data: a case study using Lake Tahoe,
California. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol. 20, 534–548.
Hook, S.J., Vaughan, R.G., Tonooka, H., Schladow, S.G., 2007. Absolute radiometric in-
flight validation of mid infrared and thermal infrared data from ASTER and MODIS
on the Terra spacecraft using the Lake Tahoe, CA/NV, USA, automated validation
site. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 45, 1798–1807.
Hu, T., Li, H., Cao, B., van Dijk, A.I., Renzullo, L.J., Xu, Z., Zhou, J., Du, Y., Liu, Q., 2019.
Influence of emissivity angular variation on land surface temperature retrieved using
the generalized split-window algorithm. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 82, 101917.
Idso, S., Jackson, R., Pinter Jr, P., Reginato, R., Hatfield, J., 1981. Normalizing the stress-
degree-day parameter for environmental variability. Agric. Meteorol. 24, 45–55.
Idso, S.B., Jackson, R.D., 1969. Thermal radiation from the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res.
74 (23), 5397–5403. https://doi.org/10.1029/JC074i023p05397.
Idso, S.B., 1982. Non-water-stressed baselines: a key to measuring and interpreting plant
water stress. Agric. Meteorol. 27, 59–70.
Idso, S.B., Jackson, R.D., Reginato, R.J., 1977. Remote-sensing of crop yields. Science
196, 19–25.
Jackson, R.D., Idso, S., Reginato, R., Pinter, P., 1981. Canopy temperature as a crop
water stress indicator. Water Resour. Res. 17, 1133–1138.
Jacob, F., Lesaignoux, A., Olioso, A., Weiss, M., Caillault, K., Jacquemoud, S., Nerry, F.,
French, A., Schmugge, T., Briottet, X., 2017. Reassessment of the temperature-
emissivity separation from multispectral thermal infrared data: Introducing the
impact of vegetation canopy by simulating the cavity effect with the SAIL-Thermique
model. Remote Sens. Environ. 198, 160–172.
Jensen, J.R., 2007. Remote sensing of vegetation. Remote Sensing of the Environment:
An Earth Resource Perspective. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Jiang, J., Tian, G., 2010. Analysis of the impact of land use/land cover change on land
surface temperature with remote sensing. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2, 571–575.
Jiménez-Muñoz, J.C., Sobrino, J.A., Gillespie, A., Sabol, D., Gustafson, W.T., 2006.
Improved land surface emissivities over agricultural areas using ASTER NDVI.
Remote Sens. Environ. 103, 474–487.
Jin, M., Liang, S., 2006. An improved land surface emissivity parameter for land surface
models using global remote sensing observations. J. Clim. 19, 2867–2881.
Jones, H.G., 1999. Use of infrared thermometry for estimation of stomatal conductance
as a possible aid to irrigation scheduling. Agric. For. Meteorol. 95, 139–149.
Jones, H.G., 2004. Application of thermal imaging and infrared sensing in plant
physiology and ecophysiology. Advances in Botanical Research. Elsevier, pp.
107–163.
Jones, H.G., Serraj, R., Loveys, B.R., Xiong, L., Wheaton, A., Price, A.H., 2009. Thermal
infrared imaging of crop canopies for the remote diagnosis and quantification of
plant responses to water stress in the field. Funct. Plant Biol. 36, 978–989.
11
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 102 (2021) 102415
Khanal, S., Fulton, J., Shearer, S., 2017. An overview of current and potential
applications of thermal remote sensing in precision agriculture. Comput. Electron.
Agric. 139, 22–32.
Kimes, D., 1980. Effects of vegetation canopy structure on remotely sensed canopy
temperatures. Remote Sens. Environ. 10, 165–174.
Kirkland, L., Herr, K., Keim, E., Adams, P., Salisbury, J., Hackwell, J., Treiman, A., 2002.
First use of an airborne thermal infrared hyperspectral scanner for compositional
mapping. Remote Sens. Environ. 80, 447–459.
Kuenzer, C., Dech, S., 2013. Theoretical background of thermal infrared remote sensing.
Thermal Infrared Remote Sensing. Springer, pp. 1–26.
Kumar, D., Shekhar, S., 2015. Statistical analysis of land surface temperature–vegetation
indexes relationship through thermal remote sensing. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 121,
39–44.
Leroux, L., Baron, C., Zoungrana, B., Traoré, S.B., Seen, D.L., Bégué, A., 2015. Crop
monitoring using vegetation and thermal indices for yield estimates: case study of a
rainfed cereal in semi-arid West Africa. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote
Sens. 9, 347–362.
Li, T., Meng, Q., 2018. A mixture emissivity analysis method for urban land surface
temperature retrieval from Landsat 8 data. Landscape Urban Plann. 179, 63–71.
Li, Z.-L., Tang, B.-H., Wu, H., Ren, H., Yan, G., Wan, Z., Trigo, I.F., Sobrino, J.A., 2013.
Satellite-derived land surface temperature: Current status and perspectives. Remote
Sens. Environ. 131, 14–37.
Liu, S., Marinelli, D., Bruzzone, L., Bovolo, F., 2019. A review of change detection in
multitemporal hyperspectral images: current techniques, applications, and
challenges. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag. 7, 140–158.
Liu, T., Li, R., Zhong, X., Jiang, M., Jin, X., Zhou, P., Liu, S., Sun, C., Guo, W., 2018.
Estimates of rice lodging using indices derived from UAV visible and thermal
infrared images. Agric. For. Meteorol. 252, 144–154.
Maes, W., Steppe, K., 2012. Estimating evapotranspiration and drought stress with
ground-based thermal remote sensing in agriculture: a review. J. Exp. Bot. 63,
4671–4712.
Maes, W.H., Baert, A., Huete, A.R., Minchin, P.E., Snelgar, W.P., Steppe, K., 2016. A new
wet reference target method for continuous infrared thermography of vegetations.
Agric. For. Meteorol. 226, 119–131.
Mahlein, A.K., 2016. Plant disease detection by imaging sensors–parallels and specific
demands for precision agriculture and plant phenotyping. Plant Dis. J. 100 (2),
241–251. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-03-15-0340-FE.
Maimaitiyiming, M., Ghulam, A., Tiyip, T., Pla, F., Latorre-Carmona, P., Halik, Ü.,
Sawut, M., Caetano, M., 2014. Effects of green space spatial pattern on land surface
temperature: Implications for sustainable urban planning and climate change
adaptation. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 89, 59–66.
Mallick, J., Kant, Y., Bharath, B., 2008. Estimation of land surface temperature over Delhi
using Landsat-7 ETM+. J. Ind. Geophys. Union 12, 131–140.
Meerdink, S., Roberts, D., Hulley, G., Gader, P., Pisek, J., Adamson, K., King, J., Hook, S.
J., 2019. Plant species’ spectral emissivity and temperature using the hyperspectral
thermal emission spectrometer (HyTES) sensor. Remote Sens. Environ. 224,
421–435.
Meerdink, S.K., Roberts, D.A., King, J.Y., Roth, K.L., Dennison, P.E., Amaral, C.H.,
Hook, S.J., 2016. Linking seasonal foliar traits to VSWIR-TIR spectroscopy across
California ecosystems. Remote Sens. Environ. 186, 322–338.
Meron, M., Tsipris, J., Charitt, D., 2003. Remote mapping of crop water status to assess
spatial variability of crop stress. In: Precision agriculture. Proceedings of the fourth
European conference on precision agriculture. Academic Publishers, Berlin, pp.
405–410.
Mira, M., Valor, E., Boluda, R., Caselles, V., Coll, C., 2007. Influence of soil water content
on the thermal infrared emissivity of bare soils: Implication for land surface
temperature determination. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 112.
Moran, M., Clarke, T., Inoue, Y., Vidal, A., 1994. Estimating crop water deficit using the
relation between surface-air temperature and spectral vegetation index. Remote
Sens. Environ. 49, 246–263.
Mushore, T.D., Mutanga, O., Odindi, J., Dube, T., 2017. Assessing the potential of
integrated Landsat 8 thermal bands, with the traditional reflective bands and derived
vegetation indices in classifying urban landscapes. Geocarto international 32,
886–899.
Mutanga, O., Skidmore, A.K., 2004. Narrow band vegetation indices overcome the
saturation problem in biomass estimation. Int. J. Remote Sens. 25, 3999–4014.
Neinavaz, E., Darvishzadeh, R., Skidmore, A.K., Abdullah, H., 2019. Integration of
landsat-8 thermal and visible-short wave infrared data for improving prediction
accuracy of forest leaf area index. Remote Sensing 11, 390.
Neinavaz, E., Darvishzadeh, R., Skidmore, A.K., Groen, T.A., 2016a. Measuring the
response of canopy emissivity spectra to leaf area index variation using thermal
hyperspectral data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 53, 40–47.
Neinavaz, E., Skidmore, A.K., Darvishzadeh, R., Groen, T.A., 2016b. Leaf area index
retrieved from thermal hyperspectral data. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
Spatial Inf. Sci. XLI-B7, 99–105.
Neinavaz, E., Skidmore, A.K., Darvishzadeh, R., Groen, T.A., 2016c. Retrieval of leaf area
index in different plant species using thermal hyperspectral data. ISPRS J.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. 119, 390–401.
Neinavaz, E., Skidmore, A.K., Darvishzadeh, R., Groen, T.A., 2017. Retrieving vegetation
canopy water content from hyperspectral thermal measurements. Agric. For.
Meteorol. 247, 365–375.
Neinavaz, E., Skidmore, A.K., Darvishzadeh, R., 2020. Effects of prediction accuracy of
the proportion of vegetation cover on land surface emissivity and temperature using
the NDVI threshold method. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 85, 101984. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jag.2019.101984.
E. Neinavaz et al.
Ogawa, K., Schmugge, T., Rokugawa, S., 2008. Estimating broadband emissivity of arid
regions and its seasonal variations using thermal infrared remote sensing. IEEE
Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 46, 334–343.
Olioso, A., 1995a. Estimating the difference between brightness and surface
temperatures for a vegetal canopy. Agric. For. Meteorol. 72, 237–242.
Olioso, A., 1995b. Simulating the relationship between thermal emissivity and the
normalized difference vegetation index. Int. J. Remote Sens. 16, 3211–3216.
Olioso, A., Sòria, G., Sobrino, J., Duchemin, B., 2007. Evidence of low land surface
thermal infrared emissivity in the presence of dry vegetation. IEEE Geosci. Remote
Sens. Lett. 4, 112–116.
Oltra-Carrió, R., Sobrino, J., Franch, B., Nerry, F., 2012. Land surface emissivity retrieval
from airborne sensor over urban areas. Remote Sens. Environ. 123, 298–305.
Palluconi, F., Kahle, A.B., Hoover, G., Conel, J.E., 1990. The spectral emissivity of prairie
and pasture grasses at Konza Prairie, Kansas. In: Proc. of the Amer. Meteorol. Soc.
Symposium on the First ISLSCP Field Experiment (FIFE), American Meteorological
Society, pp. 77–78.
Pandya, M.R., Shah, D.B., Trivedi, H.J., Lunagaria, M.M., Pandey, V., Panigrahy, S.,
Parihar, J.S., 2013. Field measurements of plant emissivity spectra: an experimental
study on remote sensing of vegetation in the thermal infrared region. J. Indian Soc.
Remote Sens. 41, 787–796.
Pierce, L.L., Running, S.W., Riggs, G.A., 1990. Remote detection of canopy water stress in
coniferous forests using the NS 001 Thematic Mapper Simulator and the thermal
infrared multispectral scanner. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 56, 579–586.
Prakash, A., 2000. Thermal remote sensing: concepts, issues and applications. Int. Arch.
Photogram. Remote Sens. 33, 239–243.
Raven, P.N., Jordan, D.L., Smith, C.E., 2002. Polarized directional reflectance from laurel
and mullein leaves. Opt. Eng. 41, 1002–1012.
Rehman, Z.U., Kazmi, S.J.H., Khanum, F., Samoon, Z.A., 2015. Analysis of land surface
temperature and NDVI using geo-spatial technique: a case study of Keti Bunder,
Sindh, Pakistan. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 11, 514–527.
Ribeiro da Luz, B., Crowley, J.K., 2007. Spectral reflectance and emissivity features of
broad leaf plants: prospects for remote sensing in the thermal infrared (8.0–14.0
μm). Remote Sens. Environ. 109, 393–405.
Ribeiro da Luz, B., Crowley, J.K., 2010. Identification of plant species by using high
spatial and spectral resolution thermal infrared (8.0–13.5 μm) imagery. Remote
Sens. Environ. 114, 404–413.
Rock, G., Gerhards, M., Schlerf, M., Hecker, C., Udelhoven, T., 2016. Plant species
discrimination using emissive thermal infrared imaging spectroscopy. Int. J. Appl.
Earth Obs. Geoinf. 53, 16–26.
Rubio, E., Caselles, V., Badenas, C., 1997. Emissivity measurements of several soils and
vegetation types in the 8–14, μm Wave band: analysis of two field methods. Remote
Sens. Environ. 59, 490–521.
Sagan, V., Maimaitijiang, M., Sidike, P., Eblimit, K., Peterson, K.T., Hartling, S.,
Esposito, F., Khanal, K., Newcomb, M., Pauli, D., 2019. UAV-based high resolution
thermal imaging for vegetation monitoring, and plant phenotyping using ICI 8640 P,
FLIR Vue Pro R 640, and thermomap cameras. Remote Sensing 11, 330.
Salisbury, J.W., 1986. Preliminary measurements of leaf spectral reflectance in the 8–14
μm region. Int. J. Remote Sens. 7, 1879–1886.
Salisbury, J.W., Milton, N.M., 1988. Thermal infrared (2.5-to 13.5-µm) directional
hemispherical reflectance of leaves. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 54 (9),
1301–1304.
Salisbury, J.W., D’Aria, D.M., 1992. Emissivity of terrestrial materials in the 8–14 μm
atmospheric window. Remote Sens. Environ. 42, 83–106.
Salisbury, J.W., Milton, N., 1987. Preliminary measurements of spectral signatures of
tropical and temperate plants in the thermal infrared.
Salisbury, J.W., Wald, A., D’Aria, D.M., 1994. Thermal-infrared remote sensing and
Kirchhoff’s law: 1. Laboratory measurements. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 99,
11897–11911.
Schlerf, M., Atzberger, C., 2012. Vegetation structure retrieval in beech and spruce
forests using spectrodirectional satellite data. Selected Top. Appl. Earth Observ.
Remote Sens., IEEE J. 5, 8–17.
Schlerf, M., Atzberger, C., Hill, J., 2005. Remote sensing of forest biophysical variables
using HyMap imaging spectrometer data. Remote Sens. Environ. 95, 177–194.
Schmugge, T., Becker, F., Li, Z.-L., 1991. Spectral emissivity variations observed in
airborne surface temperature measurements. Remote Sens. Environ. 35, 95–104.
Sepulcre-Cantó, G., Zarco-Tejada, P.J., Jiménez-Muñoz, J., Sobrino, J., Miguel, E.D.,
Villalobos, F., 2006. Detection of water stress in an olive orchard with thermal
remote sensing imagery. Agric. For. Meteorol. 136, 31–44.
Sobrino, J.A., Jiménez-Muñoz, J.C., Paolini, L., 2004. Land surface temperature retrieval
from LANDSAT TM 5. Remote Sens. Environ. 90, 434–440.
Sobrino, J.A., Jiménez-Muñoz, J.C., Sòria, G., Romaguera, M., Guanter, L., Moreno, J.,
Plaza, A., Martínez, P., 2008. Land surface emissivity retrieval from different VNIR
and TIR sensors. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 46, 316–327.
12
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 102 (2021) 102415
Sobrino, J.A., Jiménez-Muñoz, J.C., Verhoef, W., 2005. Canopy directional emissivity:
comparison between models. Remote Sens. Environ. 99, 304–314.
Sobrino, J.A., Jiménez-Muñoz, J.C., Labed-Nachbrand, J., Nerry, F., 2002. Surface
emissivity retrieval from digital airborne imaging spectrometer data. J. Geophys.
Res.: Atmos. 107.
Sobrino, J.A., Oltra-Carrió, R., Jiménez-Muñoz, J.C., Julien, Y., Soria, G., Franch, B.,
Mattar, C., 2012. Emissivity mapping over urban areas using a classification-based
approach: application to the Dual-use European Security IR Experiment (DESIREX).
Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 18, 141–147.
Stathopoulou, M., Cartalis, C., 2007. Daytime urban heat islands from Landsat ETM+ and
Corine land cover data: an application to major cities in Greece. Sol. Energy 81,
358–368.
Stathopoulou, M., Cartalis, C., Petrakis, M., 2007. Integrating Corine Land Cover data
and Landsat TM for surface emissivity definition: application to the urban area of
Athens, Greece. Int. J. Remote Sens. 28, 3291–3304.
Tanner, C., 1963. Plant temperatures 1. Agron. J. 55, 210–211.
Tonooka, H., Palluconi, F.D., 2005. Validation of ASTER/TIR standard atmospheric
correction using water surfaces. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 43, 2769–2777.
Tormann, H., 1986. Canopy temperature as a plant water stress indicator for nectarines.
S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 3, 110–114.
Ullah, S., Groen, T.A., Schlerf, M., Skidmore, A.K., Nieuwenhuis, W., Vaiphasa, C.,
2012a. Using a genetic algorithm as an optimal band selector in the mid and thermal
infrared (2.5–14 µm) to discriminate vegetation species. Sensors 12, 8755–8769.
Ullah, S., Schlerf, M., Skidmore, A.K., Hecker, C., 2012b. Identifying plant species using
mid-wave infrared (2.5–6μm) and thermal infrared (8–14μm) emissivity spectra.
Remote Sens. Environ. 118, 95–102.
Ullah, S., Skidmore, A.K., Ramoelo, A., Groen, T.A., Naeem, M., Ali, A., 2014. Retrieval
of leaf water content spanning the visible to thermal infrared spectra. ISPRS J.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. 93, 56–64.
Valor, E., Caselles, V., 1996. Mapping land surface emissivity from NDVI: application to
European, African, and South American areas. Remote Sens. Environ. 57, 167–184.
Van de Griend, A., Owe, M., 1993. On the relationship between thermal emissivity and
the normalized difference vegetation index for natural surfaces. Int. J. Remote Sens.
14, 1119–1131.
Verhoef, W., Jia, L., Xiao, Q., Su, Z., 2007. Unified optical-thermal four-stream radiative
transfer theory for homogeneous vegetation canopies. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
Sens. 45, 1808–1822.
Wawrzyniak, V., Allemand, P., Bailly, S., Lejot, J., Piégay, H., 2017. Coupling LiDAR and
thermal imagery to model the effects of riparian vegetation shade and groundwater
inputs on summer river temperature. Sci. Total Environ. 592, 616–626.
Weng, Q., Lu, D., Schubring, J., 2004. Estimation of land surface temperature–vegetation
abundance relationship for urban heat island studies. Remote Sens. Environ. 89,
467–483.
White, J.W., Montes-R, C., 2005. Variation in parameters related to leaf thickness in
common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Field Crops Res. 91, 7–21.
Xie, Q., Wu, Y., Zhou, Z., Wang, Z., 2018. Remote sensing study of the impact of
vegetation on thermal environment in different contexts. In: IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing, p. 022009.
Wong, C.L., Blevin, W.R., 1967. Infrared reflectances of plant leaves. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 20
(3), 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1071/BI9670501.
Xue, J., Su, B., 2017. Significant remote sensing vegetation indices: A review of
developments and applications. J. Sens. 2017 https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/
1353691.
Yu, Q., Acheampong, M., Pu, R., Landry, S.M., Ji, W., Dahigamuwa, T., 2018. Assessing
effects of urban vegetation height on land surface temperature in the City of Tampa,
Florida, USA. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 73, 712–720.
Yue, W., Xu, J., Tan, W., Xu, L., 2007. The relationship between land surface temperature
and NDVI with remote sensing: application to Shanghai Landsat 7 ETM+ data. Int. J.
Remote Sens. 28, 3205–3226.
Zarco-Tejada, P.J., González-Dugo, V., Williams, L., Suárez, L., Berni, J.A.,
Goldhamer, D., Fereres, E., 2013. A PRI-based water stress index combining
structural and chlorophyll effects: assessment using diurnal narrow-band airborne
imagery and the CWSI thermal index. Remote Sens. Environ. 138, 38–50.
Zhang, Y., Odeh, I.O., Han, C., 2009. Bi-temporal characterization of land surface
temperature in relation to impervious surface area, NDVI and NDBI, using a sub-
pixel image analysis. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 11, 256–264.
Zheng, D., Wang, X., Van Der Velde, R., Ferrazzoli, P., Wen, J., Wang, Z., Schwank, M.,
Colliander, A., Bindlish, R., Su, Z., 2018. Impact of surface roughness, vegetation
opacity and soil permittivity on L-band microwave emission and soil moisture
retrieval in the third pole environment. Remote Sens. Environ. 209, 633–647.
Zhou, W., Huang, G., Cadenasso, M.L., 2011. Does spatial configuration matter?
Understanding the effects of land cover pattern on land surface temperature in urban
landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann. 102, 54–63.