×

You are using an outdated browser that does not fully support the intranda viewer.
As a result, some pages may not be displayed correctly.

We recommend you use one of the following browsers:

Full text

Title
Mesures physiques et signatures en télédétection

570
amenable to description by simple models when possible. Finally, we will address the question of polarization
measurements from space and examine what should be the interest of such measurements for remote sensing purposes.
II-POLARIZATION BY VEGETATION CANOPIES
II.A. Polarization by Leaves:
II.A.l. Leaf Surface Morphology. The light reflecting and polarizing properties of the leaf surface are
determined by the index of refraction and optical roughness properties of the plant cuticle, an extracellular, multi
layered membrane of pectin, cellulose, cutin, and wax which forms a continuous and protective skin at the air-plant
interface (Martin and Juniper 1970). Trichomes, outgrowths such as hairs from epidermal cells, are covered by the
cuticle and affect the surface morphological properties.
The outermost portion of all cuticles consists of epicuticular wax. The wax may be amorphous, semicrystalline, or
crystalline in form and exhibits geometric configurations ranging from simple rods to complex dendrites (Hall et al.
1965). Electron micrographs of a leaf surface often reveal small, crystalline wax structures such as found on Sorghum
bicolor L. (sorghum), small flakes 0.1-0.16 mm thick and 0.21-1.58 mm in diameter and wax filaments 0.5-1.25 mm
in diameter and up to 140 mm long (Atkin and Hamilton 1982a, b). These semicrystalline or crystalline wax
microscale structures, having dimensions sometimes smaller than the wavelength of light, are arrayed on a
comparatively smooth amorphous wax substrate which undulates on a scale of perhaps 1000 wavelengths (Hull et al.
1978; Sargeant 1983).
The morphology of trichomes and both the cuticle and the epicuticular wax provide most of the surface detail of plant
tissue on a microscopic and optical scale, making the leaf surface an optically rough surface. The light reflecting and
light polarizing properties of this surface depend on its roughness properties.
II.A.2. Surface Reflectance of Leaves. Leaf reflectance increases with increasing angles of incidence (Gates
and Tantaporn 1952), possibly due to the effects of specular reflection (Shul'gin and Khazanov 1961). Leaf reflectance
is intermediate between that of a perfectly diffuse and a perfectly specular reflector (Breece and Holmes 1971, Brakkeet
al. 1989, Sarto et al. 1989, Waiter-Shea and Norman 1989), which suggests it is the sum of diffuse and specular
components. The diffuse component is non-polarized, varies little with changing angles and emanates from the
interior of the leaf (Shul'gin and Khazanov 1961, Shul'gin and Moldau 1964). The non-diffuse componentis
polarized, emanates from the leaf surface and is spread about the specular direction (Rvachev and Guminetskii 1966,
Vanderbilt et al. 1985a). The leaf surface roughness determines the angular spread of the polarized, specular reflectance
lobe because leaves appear capable of specularly reflecting light in all directions (Rvachev and Guminetskii 1966,
Woolley 1971, Vanderbilt et al. 1985a). Qinglin et al. (1990) showed the surface reflection of the leaves of three
species could be described using Kirchhoff rough surface scattering theory.
The amount of light specularly reflected by a leaf varies with species (Grant et al. 1983, McClendon 1984, Grant et al.
1987a, Grant et al. 1987b, Grant et al. 1993). Visibly shiny leaves tend to have higher specular reflectance than matte
leaves (Shul'gin and Khazanov 1961), though leaves which appear to have no shiny appearance can still specularly
reflect light (McClendon 1984). Leaves with sparsely distributed hairs can specularly reflect more light than glabrous
leaves and some highly pubescent leaves may be strong specular reflectors (McClendon 1984). Thus the presence or
absence of hairs does not serve as a predictor of specular reflectance.
II.A.3. Polarized Reflection: Leaf Surface vs. Leaf Interior. One might assume that the various optical
properties of a leaf should depend upon both its surface and interior, probably not upon the leaf surface exclusively.
Yet there may be an exception. In a survey of 18 plant species which included agronomic and weed species, fores!
species, vegetable species and potted plant species, the linear polarization of the light reflected by individual leaves,
measured in situ , 55° from normal, was found to depend only on the leaf surface properties (Grant et al. 1987a, Grant
et al. 1993).
Unlike previous investigations which emphasized angular effects, Grant et al. (1987a and 1993) investigated the
polarized reflecting properties of leaves as a function of wavelength. Their results (Figs. 1A and IB) show the linearly
polarized part Rp of the leaf reflectance factor in the visible and near-infrared wavelength regions appears unaffected by
cellular pigments in each leaf. Statistical tests show there is no significant change in Rp with wavelength; spectrally,
Rp is flat. The results (Figs. 1C and ID) show the non-polarized part Rpq of leaf reflectance varies spectrally
according to the constituent pigments in each leaf. How can light reflected by a leaf not display at least some evidence
of interaction with leaf pigments, especially pigments with a spectral presence so evident in Rn? The answer appears
to be that the polarized part of the reflected light never entered the leaf tissue to interact with the leaf pigments. These
results support the hypothesis that Rp represents light reflected at the leaf surface.
The degree of polarization, Rp/(Rp+R>j), includes information from two dissimilar sources, a fact which complicates
data interpretation. The numerator Rp contains information about the leaf surface and is a leaf-dependent constant
(Figs. 2A and
leaf surface, ai
simplify data
polarization.
Fig. 1.
adaxial
approx
variabl
The results (F
absorption sp
spectral regioi
Grant conclud
appears to be
reflected by a
originates at t
primarily, but
absorbing me
properties of t
1I.A.4. Othe\
the semicryst;
Grant et al. (1
no evidence t
measured spe
a high densit’
bluish surface
II.B. Polar
II.B.1. Intro
borne sensor«
the plant can
polarizing pr