Retrieving the Diurnal FPAR of a Maize Canopy from the Jointing Stage to the Tasseling Stage with Vegetation Indices under Different Water Stresses and Light Conditions.

The fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (FPAR) is a key variable in the model of vegetation productivity. Vegetation indices (VIs) that were derived from instantaneous remote-sensing data have been successfully used to estimate the FPAR of a day or a longer period. However, it has not yet been verified whether continuous VIs can be used to accurately estimate the diurnal dynamics of a vegetation canopy FPAR, which may fluctuate dramatically within a day. In this study, we measured the high temporal resolution spectral data (480 to 850 nm) and FPAR data of a maize canopy from the jointing stage to the tasseling stage under different irrigation and illumination conditions using two automatic observation systems. To estimate the FPAR, we developed regression models based on a quadratic function using 13 kinds of VIs. The results show the following: (1) Under nondrought conditions, although the illumination condition (sunny or cloudy) influenced the trend of the canopy diurnal FPAR, it had only a slight effect on the model accuracies of the FPAR-VIs. The maximum coefficients of determination (R²) of the FPAR-VIs models generated for the sunny nondrought data, the cloudy nondrought data, and all of the nondrought data were 0.895, 0.88, and 0.828, respectively. The VIs-including normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), green NDVI (GNDVI), red-edge simple ratio (SR), modified simple ratio 2 (mSR2), red-edge normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), and enhanced vegetation index (EVI)-that were related to the canopy structure had higher estimation accuracies (R² > 0.8) than the other VIs that were related to the soil adjustment, chlorophyll, and physiology. The estimation accuracies of the GNDVI and some red-edge VIs (including NDVI, SR, and mSR2) were higher than the estimation accuracy of the NDVI. (2) Under drought stress, the FPAR decreased significantly because of leaf wilting and the effective leaf area index decrease around noon. When we included drought data in the model, accuracies were reduced dramatically and the R² value of the best model was only 0.59. When we built the regression models based only on drought data, the EVI, which can weaken the influence of soil, had the best estimate accuracy (R² = 0.68).