![]()
Table 2-3. Potential or Demonstrated Capabilities of Spaceborne SARs for Ecology
|
APPLICATION AREA |
|
||||||||
|
ERS-1/ERS-2 |
JERS-1 |
Radarsat |
ENVISAT |
SIR-C/X-SAR |
|||||
|
Vegetation Mapping |
Poor overall, improvement with multitemporal data |
Somewhat better than ERS-1, but still poor overall, multitemporal may improve, but has low sampling frequency |
probably poor without using multi-temporal data |
better than single polarization systems, but still not optimum; multi-temporal data needed |
near optimum configuration |
||||
|
Crop Monitoring |
good results achieved using multi-temporal data |
poor overall, sampling frequency too low |
good potential with multi-temporal sampling |
improvement over single-channel systems |
near optimum for single-date classification |
||||
|
Biomass Estimation |
poor except for low biomasses |
good for lower biomass, but still limited |
poor except for very low biomass |
some improvement over ERS-1/Radarsat, but still poor |
near optimum configuration, but lower frequency (P-band) still optimum system |
||||
|
Monitoring Flooded Forests |
poor except when few leaves are present |
a good system for flood detection, but poor for monitoring because of low sampling frequency |
will be better than ERS-1, but limited to leaf off conditions or low density stands |
will be better than ERS-1, but limited to leaf off conditions or low density stands |
near optimum in terms of frequency/ polarization, poor in terms of repeat frequency |
||||
|
Monitoring Coastal/ Low Stature Wetlands |
adequate in some situations |
poor |
better than ERS-1 because of higher repeat frequency and HH polarization |
good overall - better than ERS-1/ Radarsat because of multiple-polarizations and high repeat frequency |
near optimum in terms of frequency/ polarization, poor in terms of repeat frequency |
||||