Remote Sensing (May 2021)

Remote Sensing for Plant Water Content Monitoring: A Review

  • Carlos Quemada,
  • José M. Pérez-Escudero,
  • Ramón Gonzalo,
  • Iñigo Ederra,
  • Luis G. Santesteban,
  • Nazareth Torres,
  • Juan Carlos Iriarte

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13112088
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 11
p. 2088

Abstract

Read online

This paper reviews the different remote sensing techniques found in the literature to monitor plant water status, allowing farmers to control the irrigation management and to avoid unnecessary periods of water shortage and a needless waste of valuable water. The scope of this paper covers a broad range of 77 references published between the years 1981 and 2021 and collected from different search web sites, especially Scopus. Among them, 74 references are research papers and the remaining three are review papers. The different collected approaches have been categorized according to the part of the plant subjected to measurement, that is, soil (12.2%), canopy (33.8%), leaves (35.1%) or trunk (18.9%). In addition to a brief summary of each study, the main monitoring technologies have been analyzed in this review. Concerning the presentation of the data, different results have been obtained. According to the year of publication, the number of published papers has increased exponentially over time, mainly due to the technological development over the last decades. The most common sensor is the radiometer, which is employed in 15 papers (20.3%), followed by continuous-wave (CW) spectroscopy (12.2%), camera (10.8%) and THz time-domain spectroscopy (TDS) (10.8%). Excluding two studies, the minimum coefficient of determination (R2) obtained in the references of this review is 0.64. This indicates the high degree of correlation between the estimated and measured data for the different technologies and monitoring methods. The five most frequent water indicators of this study are: normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) (12.2%), backscattering coefficients (10.8%), spectral reflectance (8.1%), reflection coefficient (8.1%) and dielectric constant (8.1%).

Keywords