thumbnail

Infrared measurements of pristine and disturbed soils 1. Spectral contrast differences between field and laboratory data

Remote Sensing of Environment

By:
, , ,
DOI: 10.1016/S0034-4257(97)00166-1

Links

Abstract

Comparison of emissivity spectra (8-13 ??m) of pristine soils in the field with laboratory reflectance spectra of the same soils showed that laboratory spectra tend to have less spectral contrast than field spectra (see following article). We investigated this the phenomenon by measuring emission spectra of both undisturbed (in situ) and disturbed soils (prepared as if for transport to the laboratory). The disturbed soils had much less spectral contrast than the undisturbed soils in the reststrahlen region near 9 ??m. While the increased porosity of a disturbed soil can decrease spectral contrast due to multiple scattering, we hypothesize that the effect is dominantly the result of a difference in grain-size distribution of the optically active layer (i.e., fine particle coatings). This concept was proposed by Salisbury et al. (1994) to explain their observations that soils washed free of small particles adhering the larger grains exhibited greater spectral contrast than unwashed soils. Our laboratory reflectance spectra of wet- and dry-sieved soils returned from field sites also show greater spectral contrast for wet-sieved (washed) soils. We therefore propose that undisturbed soils in the field can be characterized as 'clean' soils (washed free of fine particles at the surface due to rain and wind action) and that disturbed soils represent 'dirty' soils (contaminated with fine particle coatings). The effect of packing soils in the field and laboratory also increases spectral contrast but not to the magnitude of that observed for undisturbed and wet-sieved soils. Since it is a common practice to use laboratory spectra of field samples to interpret spectra obtained remotely, we suggest that the influence of fine particle coatings on disturbed soils, if unrecognized, could influence interpretations of remote sensing data.Comparison of emissivity spectra (8-13 ??m) of pristine soils in the field with laboratory reflectance spectra of the same soils showed that laboratory spectra tend to have less spectral contrast than field spectra (see following article). We investigated this phenomenon by measuring emission spectra of both undisturbed (in situ) and disturbed soils (prepared as if for transport to the laboratory). The disturbed soils had much less spectral contrast than the undisturbed soils in the reststrahlen region near 9 ??m. While the increased porosity of a disturbed soil can decrease spectral contrast due to multiple scattering, we hypothesize that the effect is dominantly the result of a difference in grain-size distribution of the optically active layer (i.e., fine particle coatings). This concept was proposed by Salisbury et al. (1994) to explain their observations that soils washed free of small particles adhering to larger grains exhibited greater spectral contrast than unwashed soils. Our laboratory reflectance spectra of wet- and dry-sieved soils returned from field sites also show greater spectral contrast for wet-sieved (washed) soils. We therefore propose that undisturbed soils in the field can be characterized as `clean' soils (washed free of fine particles at the surface due to rain and wind action) and that disturbed soils represent `dirty' soils (contaminated with fine particle coatings). The effect of packing soils in the field and laboratory also increases spectral contrast but not to the magnitude of that observed for undisturbed and wet-sieved soils. Since it is a common practice to use laboratory spectra of field samples to interpret spectra obtained remotely, we suggest that the influence of fine particle coatings on disturbed soils, if unrecognized, could influence interpretations of remote sensing data.

Additional Publication Details

Publication type:
Article
Publication Subtype:
Journal Article
Title:
Infrared measurements of pristine and disturbed soils 1. Spectral contrast differences between field and laboratory data
Series title:
Remote Sensing of Environment
DOI:
10.1016/S0034-4257(97)00166-1
Volume
64
Issue:
1
Year Published:
1998
Language:
English
Publisher:
Elsevier Science Inc
Publisher location:
New York, NY, United States
Larger Work Type:
Article
Larger Work Subtype:
Journal Article
First page:
34
Last page:
46
Number of Pages:
13