Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology A 1 (2011) 303-314

Earlier title: Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, ISSN 1939-1250

Measuring Herbage Mass by Non-Destructive Methods:

A Review

J. E. López-Díaz, A. I. Roca-Fernández and A. González-Rodríguez

Agrarian Research Centre of Mabegondo, P.O. Box 10, 15080, La Coruña, Spain

Received: September 30, 2010 / Published: July 20, 2011.

Abstract: Accurate assessment of herbage mass (HM) in pasture is a key to budgeting forage in grazing systems worldwide.
Different non-destructive techniques to measuring pasture yield are commented. The methods compared include visual estimations,
manual and electronic pasture meters and remote sensing. All methods are associated with a moderate to high error, showing that
some indirect methods of yield estimation are appropriate under certain conditions. In general terms, no method was found as the
most appropriate because many factors as climate variations, soil characteristics, plant phenology, pasture management and species
composition must be taken into account to make local calibrations from a general model. Best results were found modifying general
methods under local calibrations and under local conditions. In order to give farmers the best method to manage adequately their own
grazing systems, researchers must select the most suitable technique considering the scale of operation, the desired accuracy and the
resources available.

Key words: Forage mass, estimation methods, pasture yield, non-destructive measuring.

1. Introduction sampling procedure methods that use double sampling

techniques are commonly used by researchers to
Vegetation is measured for a wide range of
increase the precision of estimations and minimise the
purposes, such as: description in terms of botanical
amount of work [8]. These methods function by
composition, ground cover, amount of dry matter
developing a regression relationship of standing crop
(DM), quality of DM, biological alters in relation to
to predictive values, such as plant height, leaf area,
climate changes, and for determining its capacity to
vegetation density, canopy, age, cover, visual
provide feed for livestock [1-4]. During the past 70
obstruction [9] or remote sensing data [10]. However,
years, many indirect non-destructive methods for
such estimations usually are associated with a
quickly estimation of herbage mass (HM) have been
moderate to high experimental error, because
proposed and evaluated [5, 6]. Traditionally, estimates
relationships between production and pasture
from manually or mechanically clipped quadrants
variables depend on numerous factors that can interact
have been used to estimate HM. Many authors agree
mutually. The accuracy of estimations can be affected
that clipping provide accurate measures of biomass,
by many factors, such as the density and growth state
however, it is expensive, time intensive and may
of plants [11, 12], the season [13-16], species
require numerous samples to obtain reliable pasture
composition of the meadow [17] and grassland
estimates [7]. Furthermore, the time and labour
management [14]. Traditional methods as visual
required constrain the number of samples that can be
estimation [18] are considered satisfactory for general
collected realistically. Alternative to clipping,
grassland inventories, but, as reported by Tucker [19],
Corresponding author: J. E. López-Díaz, Ph.D., research it suffers from variations among observers and is not a
fields: grassland science, agronomy, dairy systems, grass
quantitative method. A variety of methods that use
growth. E-mail: juliolopez@[Link].
304 Measuring Herbage Mass by Non-Destructive Methods: A Review

more sophisticated instruments have been developed vertically in the vegetation, steps back 4 m from the
during the past 50 years, some of them have been pole, and reads the last visible number toward the lower
adapted for its commercial use. This paper considers end of the pole at three heights (0.5, 0.8 and 1.0 m).
the application of different techniques that may be Such observations are made at the four cardinal
useful in measuring forage production or standing directions around the pole. Michalk and Herbert [26]
crop using non-destructive methods. compared this method with hand-clipping and ground
cover measures, and obtained a good correlation
2. In Situ Measurement Instruments
between height and HM, with an r2 of 0.81. Harmoney
2.1 Manual Instruments et al. [27] found this technique the most suitable in
comparison with rising plate meter, LAI analyser and
The simplest instruments are the pasture ruler and
canopy height stick, with an r2 = 0.63. Similar
the plate disc. Pasture ruler relies on a positive
conclusion were found by Ganguli et al. [28] in the
relationship between forage yield and uncompressed
same comparison, with an r2 = 0.87. Ackerman et al.
canopy height. A widely used implement in Europe is
[29] obtained a lower value (r2 = 0.59) in a two-year
the sward stick [20], which measures plant height
trial, and concluded that this technique has potential for
rather than compressed sward height. It employs a 2 ×
practical use. Ackerman et al. [29] found an r2 value of
1 cm clear window that is lowered vertically on a shaft
0.88, and Vermeire and Gillen [9] found an r2 = 0.90.
until its base touches the vegetation. The height contact
As can be seen, all papers reviewed consider visual
above the ground is recorded in 0.5 cm bands.
obstruction technique as a good method for
However, canopy height can be difficult to measure
non-destructively estimating. However, there are some
due to the subjectivity associated with which plant or
considerations about the use of this technique: as shown
plan parts should be considered to form a mean height
by Heady [21], some factors difficult exact measures of
measure [21], so researchers have been added several
pasture height: the highest point may be difficult to
types of discs or plates to the rule to incorporate an
identify when plants are lodging or dropping, when the
area dimension to the measurement. Plate discs consist
point is the tip of an structure, and when several parts
in grass meters with a light, horizontal plate (called
are nearly the same height. The second consideration is
“weighted disc”, “rising plate”, “drop-disc” or “pasture
that not many references exist in the literature, and as
disc” in bibliography) of about 0.3 × 0.3 m that can
reported by Benkobi et al. [30] and Ganguli et al. [28]
slide up or down a central, vertical and graduated stem
investigations on the performance of this method in
[22]. Several authors suggested modifications from this
different vegetation types are limited.
design as the substitution of the metal plate by other
materials such an acrylic and transparent plastic with 2.2 Electronic Instruments
some markers or holes [23]. These holes allow the use More complex electronic instruments as the
of the plate as a squared paper for estimating ground electronic capacitance meter, first reported by
cover of for measuring the occurrence of forage Fletcher and Robinson [31] and sonic sward stick [32]
species under the sampling area. have been developed to improve speed and precision
A method called visual obstruction was proposed in of sampling. The sonic sward stick calculates sward
1970 by Robel et al. [24, 25]. A striped pole often height from the flight time of an ultrasonic pulse
called the Robel pole measures the lowest point of the bounced off the sward surface. Electronic capacitance
pole not visually obstructed by vegetation when placed meter uses a single rod probe and an electronic system
vertically in a sward. Numerous transects are walked that accumulates the readings from a number of
and the observer stops at intervals, sets the pole sampling sites within a pasture plot [33, 34]. The
 Measuring Herbage Mass by Non-Destructive Methods: A Review 305

reading-system relies on differences in dielectric which can affect the calibrations of instruments.
constants between air and herbage and it measures the Stockdale and Kelly [47] suggested that the aspect of
capacitance of the air-herbage mixture, responding trampling is the major factor that may preclude the
mainly to the surface area of the foliage [8]. A variety rising plate meter from general use in dairy cattle
of capacitance meters have been built under this research. If the herbage is evenly trampled, there
principle and incorporating various modifications would not be a problem with either meter; however,
[35-45]. However, and as reported by Murphy et al. dairy cows trample a sward unevenly. Stockdale and
[45], readings are affected by water in vegetation, Kelly [47] concluded that cutting quadrants was the
including litter, and is not an accurate method during best way to estimate post-grazing HM when it is
or immediately following rainfall. Commercial unevenly trampled. A possible solution to this
instruments often come with standard equations, and problem is to estimate the proportion of the sward that
the precision of this instrument depends on the is trampled and apply different regressions to each
adjustment on these calibration equations. Many proportion. In the other hand, as plant density
studies have shown that the use of indirect methods to increases in local areas, the number of stems in a
obtain a measure of HM, using this standardised given area increases, this higher density may result in
equations are not representative in different conditions a sward which would provide more local resistance to
and situations, because of variations in pastures, an object which is allowed to settle onto it.
management and climate [22]. Dowdeswell [46] Experimental error due to the sampling method also
reported a poor relationship between yields estimated constitutes an important source of variation. In this
with a rising plate meter using New Zealand equations way, the sensibility of an instrument varies with the
and measured yield. Sanderson et al. [8] obtained low spatial work scale, the sampling area and the modus
correlation coefficients with pasture ruler, rising plate operandi [48]. Aiken and Bransby [49] observed
meter and capacitance meter on cool season significant differences in measurements of the same
grass-legume pastures in three dairy farms of north grass bulk measured by four different observers, as in
east USA (Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia); the the selection of the representative sampling area too,
three trials used commercial calibrations made in New showing that the observer constitutes itself another
Zealand. These authors suggested that an error level source of variation. Variability between observers
upper from 10% could be statistically acceptable, but were also reported by Earle and McGowan [50], who
economically inaccurate. Given the inherent spatial suggested that significant differences between
and temporal variability of pastures, it may be difficult observers recommend that meter readings on
for a producer to achieve an error lower than proposed calibration and in pasture measurements should be
10%, however, some authors found that local taken by the same operator.
calibrations can reduce error to about 10% [23].
2.3 Accuracy of Calibration Equations
Many experiments which pre- and post-grazing
estimations were compared showed that post-grazing According with Rayburn [51] the logical model for
measures where poorly correlated with estimations, rotationally grazed pastures, grazed to a short residual
especially when the residue is very short, due to soil height, is a linear equation that passes through the
surface roughness combined with the weight of origin. Under continuously grazed pastures where a
rising-plate, which was too heavy to be supported by thatch build-up occurs, a regression model using a Y
the short stubble [45]. An added problem to intercept is most appropriate. In Table 1 is given a
post-grazing estimations is the effect of trampled HM, comparison between regression models obtained from
306 Measuring Herbage Mass by Non-Destructive Methods: A Review

Table 1 Best regression models found in bibliography for herbage mass estimation in most used measurement techniques.
Meters are grouped in six categories by type of technique used.
Meter Model R2 Period Source Units
Canopy analyzer Y = 147 + 847.26 X 0.32 Annual Harmoney et al., 1997 kg/ha - units
Y = 369.3 + 2517.4 X 0.67 Summer Ganguli et al., 2000 kg/ha - units
Capacitance meter Y = 1289 + 28 X 0.89 Annual Gonzalez et al., 1990 kg/ha - units
Y = 330 + 0.617 X 0.25 Annual O'Sullivan, 2002 kg/ha - cm
Y = 901 + 0.3 4 X 0.14 Annual Sanderson et al., 2001 kg/ha - units
ln (Y) = 0.718 + 0.763 X 0.72 Annual Terry et al., 1981 g/0.186 m2 - units
ln (Y) = 14.62 + 0.54 X 0.59 Annual Terry et al., 1981 g/0.186 m2 - units
Y = 5410.8 - 5512.4 e -006X 0.86 Annual Vickery et al., 1980 kg/ha - units
Y = 9.9 X + 600 0.86 Spring L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 1209 + 14 X 0.84 Spring Michell and Large, 1983 kg/ha - units
Y = -313.6 + 0.9 X (pregrazing) 0.42 Spring Murphy et al., 1995 kg/ha - cm
Y = -369.1 + 0.89 X (postgrazing) 0.13 Spring Murphy et al., 1995 kg/ha - cm
ln (Y) = 0.16 + 0.918 ln (X) 0.82 Spring Terry et al., 1981 g/0.186 m2 - units
Y = 1,200 + 9.5 X 0.86 Spring-summer L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 1,240 + 13.8 X 0.86 Summer L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 1,314 + 20.3 X 0.83 Summer Michell and Large, 1983 kg/ha - units
ln (Y) = 0.126 + 0.837 ln (X) 0.67 Summer Terry et al., 1981 g/0.186 m2 - units
Y = 1020 + 12.7 X 0.86 Summer-autumn L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 990 + 10.4 X 0.86 Autumn L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
ln (Y) = 0.363 + 0.911 ln (X) 0.82 Winter Terry et al., 1981 g/0.186 m2 - units
Pasture ruler Y = 37 + 21.7 X 0.86 Annual Gonzalez et al., 1990 kg/ha - mm
Y = 876 + 0.29 X 0.11 Annual Sanderson et al., 2001 kg/ha - cm
Y = -31.85 + 0.073 X 0.72 Spring Carton et al., 1989 kg/ha - mm
Y = 590 + 120 X 0.81 Spring L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 1,340 + 70 X 0.81 Spring-summer L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 1,340 + 172 X 0.81 Summer L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 810 + 195 X 0.81 Summer-autumn L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 400 + 300 X 0.81 Autumn L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Plate meter Y = 762 + 155 X 0.97 Annual Earle and McGowan, 1979 kg/ha - cm
Y = 282 + 29.3 X 0.91 Annual Gonzalez et al., 1990 kg/ha - mm
Y = 68.11 + 202.9 X 0.59 Annual Harmoney et al., 1997 kg/ha - cm
Y = 36 + 149 X 0.78 Annual Hoden et al., 1991 kg/ha - cm
Y = -507 + 31 X 0.51 Annual Mayne et al., 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = -1,061 + 35 X 0.48 Annual Mayne et al., 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 278 + 0.48 X 0.31 Annual Sanderson et al., 2001 kg/ha - cm
Y = -36.34 + 140.63 X 0.76 Annual Mosquera et al., 1991 kg/ha - cm
Y = 10.26 + 128.18 +0.6 X2 0.76 Annual Mosquera et al., 1991 kg/ha - cm
Y = 362 + 225 X 0.71 Annual O’Sullivan, 2002 kg/ha - cm
Y = 3 + 452 X 0.52 Annual Rayburn and Rayburn, 1998 kg/ha - cm
Y = 88.01 + 13.8 X 0.76 Spring Bransby et al., 1977 kg/ha - cm
Y = 640 + 125 X 0.84 Spring L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 371 + 18 X 0.52 Spring Mayne et al., 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 4.3 + 6.24 X 0.67 Spring Michalk and Herbert, 1977 g/m2 - cm
Y = 1,011 + 271 X 0.96 Spring Michell and Large, 1983 kg/ha - cm
Y = 8.75 + 140.46 X 0.74 Spring Mosquera et al., 1991 kg/ha - cm
 Measuring Herbage Mass by Non-Destructive Methods: A Review 307

(to be continued)
Meter Model R2 Period Source Units
Plate meter Y = 16.62 + 134.32 X + 0.27 X2 0.74 Spring Mosquera et al., 1991 kg/ha - cm
Y = 392.9 + 317.8 X (pregrazing) 0.52 Spring Murphy et al., 1995 kg/ha - cm
Y = 1,237.6 + 53.4 X (postgrazing) 0.00 Spring Murphy et al., 1995 kg/ha - cm
Y = -4.1 + 1.01 X 0.94 Spring-summer Griggs and Stringer, 1988 g/m2 - mm
Y = 990 + 130 X 0.84 Spring-summer L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 14 + 22 X 0.72 Sprng Mayne et al., 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = -188 + 154 X 0.77 Summer Bransby et al., 1977 kg/ha - cm
Y = -515.44 + 328.39 X 0.83 Summer Ganguli et al., 2000 kg/ha - cm
Y = 1,480 + 165 X 0.84 Summer L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 3,102 + 61 X 0.79 Summer Mayne et al., 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = -175 + 47 X 0.53 Summer Mayne et al., 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = 925 + 385 X 0.90 Summer Michell and Large, 1983 kg/ha - cm
Y = 1,180 + 159 X 0.84 Summer-autumn L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = -942 +33 X 0.62 Summer-autumn Mayne et al., 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = -844 + 32 X 0.39 Summer-autumn Mayne et al., 1988 kg/ha - cm
ln (Y) = 5.65 + 0.52 X - 0.02 X2 0.81 Summer-autumn O'Sullivan et al., 1987 kg/ha - mm
Y = 50.4 + 385.8 X 0.76 Summer-autumn O'Sullivan et al., 1987 kg/ha - mm
Y = -1,393 +239 X 0.62 Autumn Bransby et al., 1977 kg/ha - cm
Y = 970 + 157 X 0.84 Autumn L’Huillier, 1988 kg/ha - cm
Y = -143 + 209 X 0.88 Winter Bransby et al., 1977 kg/ha - cm
Sward stick Y = -6.4 + 15.1 X 0.91 Annual Duru and Bossuet, 1992 g/m2 - cm
Y = 62.6 + 11.9 X 0.78 Annual Duru and Bossuet, 1992 g/m2 - cm
Y = 485.01 + 56.57 X 0.55 Annual Harmoney et al., 1997 kg/ha - cm
Y = -22.08 + 799.93 X 0.78 Annual Mosquera et al., 1991 kg/ha - cm
Y = 100.21 + 44.17 X +1.7 X2 0.80 Annual Mosquera et al., 1991 kg/ha - cm
Y = -117 + 167.7 X 0.60 Annual O’Sullivan, 2002 kg/ha - cm
Y = 48.27 + 82.58 X 0.81 Spring Mosquera et al., 1991 kg/ha - cm
Y = 98.08 + 44.28 X + 1.69 X2 0.83 Spring Mosquera et al., 1991 kg/ha - cm
Y = 398.1 + 71.6 X (pregrazing) 0.49 Spring Murphy et al., 1995 kg/ha - cm
Y = 931.8 + 79.9 X (postgrazing) 0.10 Spring Murphy et al., 1995 kg/ha - cm
Y = 7.5 + 0.78 X 0.80 Spring-summer Griggs and Stringer, 1988 g/m2 - mm
Visual obstruction Y = 1,093.3 + 91.1X 0.63 Annual Harmoney et al., 1997 kg/ha - cm
Y = 19 + 113 X 0.94 Annual Robel et al., 1970 g/m2 - dm
Y = 14.05 + 4.02 X 0.66 Spring Michalk and Herbert, 1977 g/m2 - cm
Y = -819.47 + 256.62 X 0.87 Summer Ganguli et al., 2000 kg/ha - cm

several author in various types of pasture meters and from higher value of visual obstruction technique (r2 =
in several pasture conditions, because some authors 0.78), followed by plate meters (r2 = 0.74), pasture
reported different responses depending on different rulers (r2 = 0.72) and sward sticks (r2 = 0.69). Worst
growth states through the season [52, 53]. Usually the correlations were found in electronic meters, from
more used regression model is linear, however, some capacitance meters (r2 = 0.68), to canopy analyzer (r2
works with plate meters showed an exponential = 0.78), but this last meter only have two data.
response in highest values of disk meter values [16, 54, Double-sampling techniques are applied to calibrate
55]. Such mathematical trend has been observed too in non-destructive devices by a regression model. The
capacitance meters [33, 44, 47, 56]. Data given in precision of a given estimation technique may be
Table 1 shows that best mean coefficient of evaluated either by reference to the residual standard
determination (r2) were found in manual instruments, deviation (RSD) of a calibration equation, either by
308 Measuring Herbage Mass by Non-Destructive Methods: A Review

comparing the variance of a sample estimate obtained support decision-making. The principle of remote
non-destructively with that from clipping [57]. The estimation is based on the spectral radiance reflected
variance of a sample estimated obtained by by plant canopy. Radiation reflectance is affected by
double-sampling was given by Cochran [10]: leaf area index (LAI), which is related to vegetation
S y − S yx
2 2 2 2
S yx Sy cover, which may be used as a measure of total forage
S (Yˆ ) =
2
+ − (1) biomass. LAI can be estimated by measuring light
n n' N
transmission within stands by a photometer.
where S2yx is the residual mean square from calibration,
Numerous commercially available instruments, such
S2y is the variance of herbage mass observations in the
as Decagon ceptometer or LI-COR LAI-2000 plant
calibration set, n is the number of direct (clipped)
canopy analyser [65] are used to indirectly estimate
observations in the calibration set, n’ is the number of
LAI. Spectral estimations use two wavelengths
total indirect (by a device meter) in calibration plus
regions: the red (0.60-0.70 μm) and the near infrared
prediction sets, and N is the population of possible
(0.75-1.00 μm). The first region corresponds to the in
indirect observations in the sampled area (e.g. five 0.2
vivo red region of chlorophyll absorption and is
m2 sampling units within a 1 m2 area, as provided by
inversely related to the chlorophyll density. The
Griggs and Stringer [57]. Bransby et al. [16] proposed
second region is related to the fragment of spectrum
the RSD of the regression of DM yield Y on meter
where reflectance is proportional to the green leaf
readings X as Eq. (2):
density. Vegetation indices derived from remote
[∑ ( X − X )(Y − Y )] 2
sensing data have emerged as an important tool to
∑ (Y − Y ) 2
−
RSD =
∑(X − X ) 2 (2) quantify vegetation biomass, as intermediaries in the
n−2 assessment of LAI, percent green cover, green
biomass, and fraction of absorbed photosinthetically
where n is the number of paired observations made to
active radiation (fAPAR).
establish the overall regression equation. Another
Many factors can affect reflectance in any given
similar formula was given by McIntyre [58] and
waveband, such as: senescence of the plant [66], soil
simplified by Mitchell [59].
background [67], species composition [68], fertiliser
As an alternative to models that use a single
status [69], nitrogen contents [70] and presence of
variable, in recent years another methods appeared for
trees in large samples [71]. Another factors
estimating biomass that use simultaneously many
non-dependent of plants can influence the received
parameters as physical, chemical and climate variables,
signals. Tueller [72] has reported that in rangelands,
quality and pasture management, etc. Recent advances
especially arid and semi-arid rangelands, soil
in computers and statistical techniques can provide background conditions and shadows often influence
simulation models of pasture yield that can be used to the signal received by a multispectral scanner, so
predict grass growth [60-63]. These tools also allow frequently a pre-processing procedure of remote
estimating growth under simulated conditions and can sensing data often has to be made to improve quality
be considered as decision support systems [64]. of correlation coefficients [71]. Because the large
amount of factors affecting spectral reflectance, the
3. Remote Estimation Systems
use of vegetation indices, less dependent of external
Modern information technologies such as remote factors, reduce measurement variability due to soil
sensing and geographical information systems are type, sunlight intensity, angle of sunlight incidence
being used increasingly as tools to assist in grassland [73] and eliminate noise produced by these and other
resource inventory, modelling and forecasting to cited factors.
 Measuring Herbage Mass by Non-Destructive Methods: A Review 309

Most used vegetation indices are normalised Spectrometer (AVIRIS) and Compact Airborne
differenced vegetation indices (NDVI) and simple Spectrographic Imager (CASI). These systems can
ratio index (SR). First index used was SR [74], formed provide reflectance measures in up to 256 wavelength
by dividing the NIR response by the corresponding intervals at 4 m/pixel, providing both very high spatial
‘red’ band output, (SR = Xnir/Xred) where X can be and spectral resolutions. In a spatial scale, Earth
digital counts, at- satellite radiances, top of the Observation Satellites carry broad-waveband sensors
atmosphere apparent reflectances, land leaving surface are commonly used in grassland remote sensing:
radiances, surface reflectances, or hemispherical Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM+) and
spectral albedos. However, for densely vegetated areas, Thematic Mapper (TM), Multispectral scanner (MSS),
the amount of red light reflected approaches very Le Systeme pour l’observation de la terre (SPOT), the
small values and this ratio, consequently, increases Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
without bounds. Deering [75] normalised this ratio (AVHRR) of the polar orbiting series of NOAA
from -1 to +1, by rationing the difference between the (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
NIR and red bands by their sum (NDVI = [Xnir -Xred] / and the Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) and Linear
[Xnir + Xred]). For terrestrial targets the lower boundary Imaging Self-Scanning (LISS).
became approximately zero and the upper boundary These sensors have provided information in many
approximately 0.80. Other commonly used indices are studies, the most developed applications concern the
perpendicular vegetation index (PVI) [76] and soil land use and the vegetation classification, where
adjusted vegetation index (SAVI) [77, 78]. A review thematic pixels are chosen as reference classes, and
of vegetation indices was reported by Jackson and all the other pixels are sorted in these classes.
Huete [79] and Thenkabail [80]. Remote sensing from satellite data have provided
Many studies have shown vegetation indices to be accurate estimates of drought monitoring [97],
related to LAI, pasture biomass, percent green cover estimation of primary productivity in large regions
and fAPAR [81-85]. Relationships between fAPAR [98-100], biophysical and yield characteristics of
and NDVI have been shown to be linear [86-89], in agricultural crops [101-105], crop moisture
contrast with the non-linear relationship with LAI [82, variations [106, 107], leaf pigments [108, 109],
90, 91], because the signal saturates as the LAI value characterising natural vegetation [110, 111],
becomes higher than 2 o 3, and as reported by Laca assessing crop or vegetation stress [112, 113],
and Lemaire [92] estimation of LAI has to be highlighting nitrogen or organic matter deficiencies
restricted to periods of leaf area expansion just after [114], detection of crop phenology [115], etc.
sowing or severe defoliation. Other studies have However, as reported by Roderick et al. [116] there
shown the NDVI to be related to carbon-fixation, are some problems of spatial resolution, for example
canopy resistance, and potential evapotranspiration pixel size provided for NOAA-AVHRR (1100 m) is
allowing its use as input to models of biogeochemical not suitable at landscape and paddock scales and
cycles [83, 93-96]. more reduced dimension has to be used [117]. It is
Imaging spectrometers (called hyperespectral expected that new satellite systems such as Earth
scanners) may provide data at several scales of Observing System (EOS) and Earth Observing-1
observation: either at surface level by mounting (EO-1) carrying hyperspectral scanners will open
teledetection systems at land surface, either by researches a new phase in terrestrial applications.
airborne systems mounted in aircraft, which more Some interesting applications of remote sensing
typical are Airborne Visible-infrared Imaging data are to integrate multispectral data into
310 Measuring Herbage Mass by Non-Destructive Methods: A Review

quantitative models to estimate growth. For example, References

Maas et al. [118] and Moran et al. [119] used remotely [1] M. O’Sullivan, W.F. O’Keefe, M.J. Flynn, The value of
sensed estimates of LAI and evapotranspiration as pasture height in the measurement of dry matter yield,
inputs to a single alfalfa growth model. Lobell et al. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 26 (1987) 63-68.
[2] P.J. L’Hullier, N.A. Thomson, Estimation of herbage
[120] combined multi-date Landsat ETM+ imagery
mass in ryegrass/white clover dairy pastures, Proceedings
with a field-based model of crop production, obtaining of the New Zealand Grassland Association 49, 1988, pp.
good correlation between predicted and real yield (r2 = 117-122.
0.82). Others similar studies are increasing in [3] R. Mosquera, A. González, Non-destructive methods for
the estimation of sward production, in: Proceedings of the
literature with the apparition of new data and new
XVIII International Grassland Congress, Canada, 1997,
technologies to develop or to correct some growth pp. 115-116.
models [121, 122]. Another interesting application is [4] L’T. Mannetje, Measuring biomass of grassland
the use of remote sensing data to obtain vegetation, in: L’T. Mannetje, R.M. Jones (Eds.), Field
and Laboratory Methods for Grassland and Animal
multi-temporal series over time in grasslands, which
Production Research, pp. 151-177, Cabi-Publishing, UK,
have direct applications in study of global climatic 2000.
changes. With the recent projects of development of [5] W.R. Catchpole, C.J. Wheeler, Estimating biomass: a
new satellites in a near future [123] resolution could review of techniques, Australian Journal of Ecology 171
(1992) 121-131.
increase to 1-5 m, offering vastly improve spatial
[6] R.J. Lucas, K.F. Thomson, Pasture assessment for
resolution. But as reported by Roderick et al. [116] livestock managers, in: R.H.M. Langer (Ed.), Pastures,
best applications come from the development of a Their Ecology and Management, Oxford University Press,
global broad-band communication network that may New York, EE. UU., 1994, pp. 467-471.
[7] J.E. Brummer, J.T. Nichols, R.K. Engel, et al., Efficiency
improve global grassland management.
of different quadrant sizes and shapes for sampling
standing crop, Journal of Range Management 47 (1994)
4. Conclusions
84-89.
Many works has shown that non-destructive HM [8] M.A. Sanderson, C.A. Rotz, S.W. Fultz, et al., Estimating
forage mass with a commercial capacitance meter and
estimations in grasslands are statistically acceptable
pasture ruler, Agronomy Journal 93 (2001) 1281-1286.
when are present both choice of an accurate system [9] L.T. Vermeire, L.R. Gillen, Estimating herbage standing
and the development of a correct model. The choice crop with visual obstruction in tallgrass prairie, Journal of
Range Management 54 (2001) 57-60.
depends of the work scale, resources available and
[10] W.G. Cochran, Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed., John
precision required. Remote sensing data has shown a William & Sons, Inc., New York, USA, 1977, p. 428.
potential use but not an exact management of [11] R. Mosquera, A. González, T. Brea, La altura de la
agricultural systems in past years, due to restrictions pradera como un método de predicción de su producción
en pastoreo, in: XXXI Reunión Científica Sociedad
derived from spatial resolution and technical
Española Estudio Pastos, Murcia, Spain, 1991, pp.
limitations. Modern systems and information 285-290.
accessible by networks and international programs are [12] R. Mosquera, A. González, Relationship between height
and sward quality in rotational dairy systems, in:
increasing researches possibilities to provide farmers
Proceedings of the XVIII International Grassland
an improved management of grazing systems. Congress, Canada, 1997, pp. 115-116.
[13] D.S.M. Phillips, S.E. Clarke, The calibration of a
Acknowledgments weighted disc against pasture dry matter yield, in:
Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association,
The authors acknowledge the support from the
New Zealand, 1971, pp. 68-75.
UE-Project Grazemore QLRT-2000-02111 Frame [14] T.L. Powell, Evaluation of a weighted disc meter for
Work-7. pasture yield estimation of intensively stocked dairy
 Measuring Herbage Mass by Non-Destructive Methods: A Review 311

pasture, New Zealand Journal of Experimental Station-Oklahoma 973 (1999) 194-199.

Agriculture 2 (1974) 237-241. [30] L. Benkobi, D.W. Uresk, G. Schenbeck, et al., Protocol
[15] E.W. Vartha, A.G. Matches, Use of weighted-disc for monitoring standing crop in grasslands using visual
measure as an in sampling the herbage yield on tall obstruction, Journal of Range Management 53 (2000)
fescue pastures grazed by cattle, Agronomy Journal 69 627-633.
(1977) 888-890. [31] J.E. Fletcher, M.E. Robinson, A capacitance meter for
[16] D.I. Bransby, A.G. Matches, G.P. Krauge, Disk meter for estimating forage weight, Journal of Range Management
rapid estimation of herbage yield in grazing trials, 9 (1956) 96-97.
Agronomy Journal 69 (1977) 393-396. [32] N.J. Hutchings, A.H. Phillips, R.C. Dobson, An
[17] M.E. Castle, A simple disc instrument for estimate ultrasonic ragefinder for measuring the undisturbed
herbage yield, Journal of the British Grassland Society 17 surface height of continuously grazed grass swards, Grass
(1976) 89-100. and Forage Science 45 (1990) 119-127.
[18] J.A. Baars, C.B. Dyson, Visual estimates of available [33] P.J. Vickery, I.L. Bennett, G.R. Nicol, An improved
herbage on hill country sheep pastures, New Zealand electronic capacitance meter for estimating herbage mass,
Journal of Experimental Agriculture 9 (1981) 157-160. Grass and Forage Science 35 (1980) 245-252.
[19] C.J. Tucker, A critical review of remote sensing and other [34] M.A. González, M.A. Hussey, B.E. Conrad, Plant height,
methods for non-destructive estimation of standing crop disk and capacitance meter used to estimate
biomass, Grass and Forage Science 35 (1980) 177-182. bermudagrass herbage mass, Agronomy Journal 82 (1990)
[20] M. Duru, L. Bosquet, Estimation de la masse d’herbe par 861-864.
le “sward-stick”, Premieres Resultats Fourrages 131 [35] A.G. Campbell, D.S.M. Phillips, E.D. O’Reilly, An
(1992) 283-300. electronic instrument for pasture yield estimation, Journal
[21] H.F. Heady, The measurement and value of plant height of the British Grassland Society 17 (1962) 89-100.
in the study of herbaceous vegetation, Ecology 38 (1957) [36] F.J. Hyde, J.T. Lawrence, Electronic assessment of
313-320. pasture growth, Electronic Engineering 36 (1964)
[22] J. Frame, Herbage mass, in: A. Davies, R.D. Baker, S.A. 666-670.
Grant, S. Laidlaw (Eds.), Sward Measurement Handbook, [37] M.B. Alcock, An improved electronic instrument for
The British Grassland Society, Reading, UK, 1993, pp. estimation of pasture yield, Nature 203 (1964)
59-63. 1309-1310.
[23] B. Rayburn, S.B. Rayburn, A standardised plate meter for [38] E.J. Dowling, K. Spencer, D. Bouma, The performance of
estimating pasture mass in on-farm research trials, capacitance measuring instruments for estimating yield in
Agronomy Journal 90 (1998) 238-241. subterranean clover pastures, Field Station Record,
[24] R.J. Robel, J.N. Briggs, J.J. Cebula, et al., Greater prairie CSIRO 4 (1965) 103-107.
chicken ranges, movements and habitat usage in Kansas, [39] G.C. Johns, G.R. Nicol, B.R. Watkin, An modified
The Journal of Wildlife Management 34 (1970) 286-306. capacitance probe technique for estimating pasture yield,
[25] R.J. Robel, J.N. Briggs, L.C. Hulbert, Relationships Journal of Agricultural Science 79 (1965) 273-280.
between visual obstruction measurements and weight of [40] W.B. Morse, Heterodyne vegetation meters: electronic
grassland vegetation, Journal of Range Management 23 devices measures the volume of plant growth, Popular
(1970) 295-297. Electronics 26 (1967) 72-102.
[26] D.L. Michalk, P.K. Herbert, Evaluation of the forage disk [41] W. Kreil, J. Matschke, Studies on the determination of
method in mixed rangeland in Kansas, Journal of Range pasture yields with an electronic measuring instrument,
Management 40 (1977) 467-471. Zeitschrift für Landeskultur 9 (1968) 75-99.
[27] K.R. Harmoney, J.K. Moore, J.R. George, et al., [42] G.M. Van Dyne, F.M. Glass, P.A. Opstrup, Development
Determination of pasture biomass using four indirect and use of electronic capacitance meters to measure
methods, Agronomy Journal 89 (1997) 665-672. standing crop of herbaceous vegetation, Publication, Oak
[28] A.C. Ganguli, L.T. Vermeire, R.B. Mitchell, et al., Ridge National Laboratory, ORLB-TM 2247 (1968) 47.
Comparison of four non-destructive techniques for [43] R.J. Jones, K.P. Haydock, Yield estimation of tropical
estimating standing crop in shortgrass plains, Agronomy and temperate pasture species using an electronic
Journal 92 (2000) 1211-1215. capacitance meter, Journal of Agricultural Science 75
[29] C.J. Ackerman, H.T. Purvis, G.W. Horn, et al., (1970) 27-36.
Estimation of forage mass of Old World bluestem using a [44] W.S. Terry, D.H. Hunter, B.F. Swindel, Herbage
visual obstruction measurement technique, Animal capacitance meter: an evaluation of its accuracy in
Science Research Report, Agricultural Experiment Florida rangelands, Journal of Range Management 34
312 Measuring Herbage Mass by Non-Destructive Methods: A Review

(1981) 240-241. densities: the use of an extended rising-platemeter

[45] W.M. Murphy, J.P. Silman, A.D. Mena, A comparison of method, Grass and Forage Science 58 (2003) 450-454.
quadrate, capacitance meter, sward stick, and rising plate [56] K.D. Greathead, J. Wallace, J.N. Boultwood, The nature
for estimating herbage mass in a smooth-stalked, meadow of the relationship of electronic capacitance meter
grass-dominant white clover sward, Grass and Forage readings to pastures on offer in short swards, Grass and
Science 50 (1995) 452-455. Forage Science 42 (1987) 161-167.
[46] A. Dowdeswell, Grass 99 Monitor Farms Project, DRC [57] T.C. Griggs, W.C. Stringer, Prediction of alfalfa herbage
Dairylink, May-April, 1998. mass using sward height, ground cover and disk
[47] C.R. Stockdale, K.B. Kelly, A Comparison of a technique, Agronomy Journal 80 (1988) 204-208.
rising-plate meter and an electronic capacitance meter for [58] G.A. McIntyre, Statistical aspects of vegetation sampling,
estimating the yield of pastures of dairy cows, Grass and in: L’T. Mannetje (Ed.), Measurement of Grassland
Forage Science 39 (1984) 391-394. Vegetation and Animal Production, Bull. 52,
[48] N.J. Hutchings, Spatial heterogeneity and other sources Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farham Royal,
of variance in sward as measured by the sonic and HFRO UK, 1978, pp. 8-21.
sward sticks, Grass and Forage Science 46 (1991) [59] P. Mitchell, Value of a rising-plate meter for estimating
277-282. herbage mass of grazed perennial ryegrass-white clover
[49] G.E. Aiken, D.I. Bransby, Observer variability for disk swards, Grass and Forage Science 37 (1982) 81-87.
meter measurements of forage mass, Agronomy Journal [60] A.S. Laidlaw, T.J. Gilliland, Adaptation of a mechanistic
84 (1992) 603-605. model of grass growth for use under filed conditions and
[50] D.F. Earle, A.A. McGowan, Evaluation and calibration of its validation, in: D.A. McGilloway (Ed.), Weather and
an automated rising plate meter for estimating dry matter Agro-Environmental Management, AgMet Millenium
yield of pasture, Australian Journal of Experimental Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 2000, pp. 104-105.
Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 19 (1979) 337. [61] A.J. Brereton, E. O’Riordan, A comparison of grass
[51] B. Rayburn, An acrylic pasture weight plate for growth models, in: N.M. Holden (Ed.),
estimating forage yield, University Extension Service, Agro-Meteorological Modelling-Principles, Data and
1997, available online at: Applications, Dublin, Ireland, 2001, pp. 136-154.
[Link] [62] M. Höglind, A. Schapendonk, M. Van Oijen, Timothy
[52] O.P. Vázquez, A. González, J. López, Descripción de la growth in Scandinavia: combining quantitative
evolución de la altura y producción de una pradera information and simulation modelling, New Phytologist
durante el pastoreo de primavera con vacas de leche, in: 151 (2001) 355-367.
K. Osoro, A. Argamentería, A. Carraceleta (Eds.), [63] P.D. Barrett, A.S. Laidlaw, C.S. Mayne, GrazeGro: a
Producciones agroganaderas, Gestión eficiente y European herbage growth model to predict pasture
conservación del medio natural, Libro de Actas de la production in perennial ryegrass swards for decision
XLV Reunión Científica de la Sociedad Española para el support, European Journal of Agronomy 23 (2005) 37-56.
Estudio de los Pastos. Gijón, Asturias, Spain, 2005, pp. [64] A. González, J. López, O.P. Vázquez, External validation
191-1998. in northwest Spain of a decision support system for
[53] J. López, A. González, O.P. Vázquez, Revisión de grazing dairy cows: Grazemore, in: F.P. O’Mara, R.J.
métodos no destructivos de estimación de biomasa aérea Wilkins, L.’t Mannetje (Eds.), XX International
en pastos, in: P. Fernández, A. Gómez, J.E. Guerrero et al. Grassland Congresss, Dublin, Ireland, 2005, p. 906.
(Eds.), Pastos, clave en la gestión de los territorios: [65] G. Deblonde, M. Penner, Measuring leaf area index with
Integrando disciplinas. Libro de Actas de la XLVII the LICOR LAI-2000 in pine stands, Ecology 75 (1994)
Reunión Científica de la Sociedad Española para el 1507-1511.
Estudio de los Pastos, Córdoba, Andalucía, Spain, 2008, [66] C.J. Tucker, Post-senescence grass canopy remote sensing,
pp. 315-321. Remote Sensing of Environment 10 (1978) 127-150.
[54] G.D. Li, K.R. Helyar, L.J. Castleman, et al., The [67] J.L. Heilman, W.E. Boyd, Soil background effects on the
implementation and limitations of using a falling plate spectral response of a three component rangeland scene,
meter to estimate pasture yield, in: D.L. Michalk, J.E. Remote Sensing of Environment 19 (1986) 127-137.
Pratley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Australian [68] G. Asrar, R.L. Weiser, D.E. Johnson, et al.,
Agronomy Conference, Sydney, Australia, 1998, pp. Distinguishing among tall grass prairie cover types from
20-23. measurements of multispectral reflectance, Remote
[55] O. Correll, J. Isselstein, V. Pavlu, Studying spatial and Sensing of Environment 19 (1986) 139-169.
temporal dynamics of sward structure at low stocking [69] P.J. Vickery, D.A. Hedges, Use of Landsat MSS data to
 Measuring Herbage Mass by Non-Destructive Methods: A Review 313

determine the fertiliser status of improved grasslands, [85] S.N. Goward, K.F. Huemmrick, Vegetation canopy PAR
Proceedings of 4th Australian Remote Sensing absorbance and the normalized difference vegetation
Conference, Adelaide, USA, 1987, pp. 287-304. index: an assessment using the SAIL model, Remote
[70] I. Filella, L. Serrano, J. Serra, et al., Evaluating wheat Sensing of Environment 39 (1992) 119-140.
nitrogen status with canopy reflectance indices and [86] C.L. Wiegand, A.J. Richardson, D.E. Escobar, et al.,
discriminant analysis, Crop Science 35 (1995) Vegetation indices in crop assessments, Remote Sensing
1400-1405. of Environment 35 (1991) 105-119.
[71] H.D. Williamson, Estimating biomass of an improved [87] C.S.T. Daughtry, K.P. Gallo, S.N. Goward, et al.,
pasture using SPOT HRV data, Grass and Forage Science Spectral estimates of absorbed radiation and phytomass
45 (1990) 235-241. production in corn and soybean canopies, Remote
[72] P.T. Tueller, Remote sensing technology for rangeland Sensing of Environment 39 (1992) 141-152.
management applications, Journal of Range Management [88] A. Begue, Leaf area index, intercepted photosynthetically
42 (1989) 442-453. active radiation, and spectral vegetation indices: a
[73] K.C. Olson, R. Cochran, Radiometry for predicting sensitivity analysis for regular-clumped canopies, Remote
tallgrass prairie biomass using regression and neural Sensing of Environment 46 (1993) 45-59.
models, Journal of Range Management 51 (1998) 186-192. [89] [Link]. Pinter, Solar angle independence in the
[74] C.F. Jordan, Derivation of leaf area index from quality of relationship between absorbed PAR and remotely sensed
light on the forest floor, Ecology 50 (1969) 663-666. data for alfalfa, Remote Sens. Environ 46 (1993) 19-25.
[75] D.W. Deering, Rangeland reflectance characteristics [90] E.M. King, G.T. Barthram, A comparison of spectral
measured by aircraft and spacecraft sensors, Ph.D. reflectance and sward surface height measurements to
Dissertation, Texas A & M University, College Station, estimate herbage mass and leaf area index in
Texas, USA, 1978, p. 338. continuously stocked ryegrass pastures, Grass and Forage
[76] A.J. Richardson, C.L. Wiegand, Distinguishing Science 41 (1986) 251-258.
vegetation from soil background information, [91] N. Aparicio, D. Villegas, J. Casadesus, et al., Spectral
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 43 vegetation indices as non destructive tools for
(1977) 1541-1552. determining durum wheat yield, Agronomy Journal 92
[77] A.R. Huete, A soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI), (2000) 83-91.
Remote Sensing of Environment 25 (1988) 295-309. [92] E.A. Laca, G. Lemaire, Measuring sward structure, in:
[78] J. Qi, A. Chehbouni, A.R. Huete, et al., A modified soil L’T. Mannetje, R.M. Jones (Eds.), Field and Laboratory
adjusted vegetation index, Remote Sensing of Methods for Grassland and Animal Production Research,
Environment 48 (1994) 119-126. Cabi-Publishing, UK, 2000, pp. 103-121.
[79] R.D. Jackson, A.R. Huete, Interpreting vegetation indices, [93] Y. Fung, C.J. Tucker, K.C. Prentice, Application of
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 11 (1991) 185-200. Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer vegetation
[80] P.S. Thenkabail, R.B. Smith, E. De Pauw, Hyperspectral index to study atmosphere-biosphere exchange of CO2,
vegetation Indices for determining agricultural crop Journal of Geophysichal Research 92 (1987) 2999-3015.
characteristics, Remote Sensing of Environment 71 (2000) [94] S.W. Running, R.R. Nemani, D.L. Peterson, et al.,
158-182. Mapping regional forest evapotranspiration
[81] P.J. Curran, Relative reflectance data from pre-processed andphotosynthesis by coupling satellite data with
multispectral photography, International Journal of ecosystem simulation, Ecology 70 (1989) 1090-1101.
Remote Sensing 1 (1980) 77-83. [95] S.W. Running, Estimating terrestrial primary productivity
[82] G. Asrar, M. Fuchs, E.T. Kanemasu, J.L. Hatfield, by combining remote sensing and ecosystem simulation,
Estimating absorbed photosynthetic radiation and leaf in: H. Mooney, R. Hobbs (Eds.), Ecological Studies:
area index from spectral reflectance in wheat, Agronomy Remote Sensing of Biosphere Functioning,
Journal 76 (1984) 300-306. Springer-Verlag, USA, 1990, pp. 65-86.
[83] P.J. Sellers, Canopy reflectance, photosynthesis and [96] J.W. Raich, W.H. Schlesinger, The global carbon dioxide
transpiration, International Journal of Remote Sensing 6 flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation
(1985) 1335-1372. and climate, Tellus 44B (1992) 81-99.
[84] S.W. Running, R.R. Nemani, Relating seasonal patterns [97] C.F. Hutchinson, Uses of satellite data for famine early
of the AVHRR vegetation index to simulated warning in sub-Saharan Africa, International Journal of
photosynthesis and transpiration of forest in different Remote Sensing 12 (1991) 1405-1421.
climates, Remote Sensing of Environment 24 (1988) [98] C.J. Tucker, C.L. Vanpraet, J. Sharman, et al., Satellite
347-367. remote sensing of total herbaceous biomass production in
314 Measuring Herbage Mass by Non-Destructive Methods: A Review

the Senegalese Sahel: 1980-1984, Remote Sensing of [112] G.A. Blackburn, Spectral indices for estimating
Environment 17 (1985) 233-249. photosynthetic pigment concentrations: a test using
[99] S.D. Prince, A model of regional primary production for senescent tree leaves, International Journal of Remote
use with coarse resolution satellite data, International Sensing 19 (1998) 657-675.
Journal of Remote Sensing 12 (1991) 1313-1330. [113] T.P. Dawson, P.J. Curran, A new technique for
[100] S.D. Prince, Satellite remote sensing of primary interpolating the reflectance red edge position,
production: comparison of results for Sahelian grasslands International Journal of Remote Sensing 19 (1998)
1981-1988, International Journal of Remote Sensing 12 2133-2139.
(1991) 1301-1311. [114] K. McGwire, T. Minor, L. Fenstermaker, Hyperspectral
[101] A.J. Richardson, C.L. Wiegand, D.F. Wanjura, et al., mixture modelling for quantifying sparse vegetation
Multisite analysis of spectral-biophysical data for sorphum, cover in arid environments, Remote Sensing of
Remote Sensing of Environment 47 (1992) 71-82. Environment 72 (2000) 360-374.
[102] P. Gong, R. Pu, J.R. Miller, Coniferous forest leaf area [115] G.D. Badhwar, K.E. Henderson, Estimating
index estimation along the Oregon transect using compact developmental stages of corn using spectral data-an initial
airborne spectrographic imager data, Photogrammetric model, Agronomy Journal 73 (1981) 748-755.
Engineering and Remote Sensing 61 (1995) 1107-1117. [116] M.L. Roderick, V. Chewings, R.C.G. Smith, Remote
[103] G.A. Carter, Reflectance wavebands and indices for sensing in vegetation and animal studies, in: L’T.
remote estimation of photosynthesis and stomatal Mannetje, R.M. Jones (Eds.), Field and Laboratory
conductance in pine canopies, Remote Sensing of Methods for Grassland and Animal Production Research,
Environment 63 (1997) 61-72. Cabi-Publishing, UK, 2000, pp. 205-225.
[104] D.T. Shaw, T.J. Malthus, J.A. Kupiec, High-spectral [117] G. Bastin, G. Pickup, G. Pearce, Utility of AVHRR data
resolution data for monitoring Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris for land degradation assessment: a case study, International
L.) regeneration, International Journal of Remote Sensing Journal of Remote Sensing 16 (1995) 651-672.
19 (1998) 2601-2608. [118] S.J. Maas, M.S. Moran, R.D. Jackson, Combining remote
[105] G.P. Asner, C.A. Wessman, C.A. Bateson, et al., Impact sensing and modelling for regional resource monitoring,
of tissue, canopy, and landscape factors on the Part II, A simple model for estimating surface
hyperspectral reflectance variability of arid ecosystems, evaporation and biomass production, Proceedings of 1992
Remote Sensing of Environment 74 (2000) 69-84. ASPRS/ACSM Convention, Monitoring and Mapping
[106] J. Peñuelas, I. Filella, C. Biel, et al., The reflectance at the Global Change, Washington DC, [Link]., 1992, pp.
950-970 region as an indicator of plant water status, 225-234.
International Journal of Remote Sensing 14 (1993) [119] S.M. Moran, S.J. Maas, Jr. P. J. Pinter, Combining
1887-1905. remote sensing and modelling for estimating surface
[107] J. Peñuelas, I. Filella, P. Lloret, et al., Reflectance evaporation and biomass production, Remote Sensing
assessment of mite effects on apple trees, International Reviews 12 (1995) 335-353.
Journal of Remote Sensing 16 (1995) 2727-2733. [120] D.B. Lobell, G.P. Asner, J.I. Ortiz-Monasterio, Regional
[108] G.A. Blackburn, Relationships between spectral wheat yield prediction using Landsat 7 satellite imagery,
reflectance and pigment concentrations in stacks of Proceedings of the Third International Conference of
deciduous broadleaves, Remote Sensing of Environment Geospatial Information in Agriculture and Forestry,
70 (1999) 224-237. Denver, Colorado, 2001.
[109] G.A. Blackburn, C.M. Steele, Relationships between [121] E. Mougin, D.L. Seen, S. Rambal, et al., A regional
Spectral Reflectance, Pigment, and Biophysical Sahelian grassland model to be coupled with
Characteristics of Semiarid Bushland Canopies, Remote multispectral satellite data, II: Toward the control of its
Sensing of Environment 70 (1999) 278-292. simulations by remotely sensed indices, Remote Sensing
[110] M.A. Friedl, J. Michaelsen, F.W. Davis, et al., Estimating of Environment 52 (1995) 194-206.
grassland biomass and leaf area index using ground and [122] G.J. Carbone, S. Narumalani, M. King, Application of
satellite data, International Journal of Remote Sensing 15 remote sensing and GIS technologies with physiological
(1994) 1401-1420. crop models, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
[111] P.S. Thenkabail, Characterisation of the Alternative to Sensing 62 (1996) 171-179.
slash-and-burn benchmark research area representing the [123] P. Aplin, P.M. Arkinson, P.J. Curran, Fine spatial
Congolese rainforests of Africa using near-real-time resolution satellite sensors for the next decade,
SPOT HRV data, International Journal of Remote International Journal of Remote Sensing 18 (1997)
Sensing 20 (1999) 839-877. 3873-3881.