## 5 Results
### Inter-Channel Spatial/Temporal Correlation at Plot Scale  
This section discusses and analyzes \(r_{\rm s}\) domains for the two selected plots (see Sections 4.2.2 and 5.2.2). For the plot 460, \(r_{\rm s}\) domains were analyzed for increasing vegetation cover (for bare to vegetated) and decreasing \(m_{\rm v}\) (Figure 8). In particular, three different dates were selected: (i) 19 April, when field was bare and \(m_{\rm v}\sim\)0.21 m\({}^{3}\)m\({}^{-3}\); (ii) 7 June, when field was slightly vegetated (\(F_{\rm v}\sim\)0.1) and \(m_{\rm v}\) decreased to \(\sim\)0.16 m\({}^{3}\)m\({}^{-3}\); and, (iii) 26 July, when \(F_{\rm v}\) increased up to (\(\sim\)0.35) and the \(m_{\rm v}\) decreased to \(\sim\)0.02 m\({}^{3}\)m\({}^{-3}\). On 19 April the \(r_{\rm s}\) domain highlights that strong to very strong correlation occurred among \(\sigma^{\circ}\) at L and X channels, weak to very strong correlations were observed among \(\sigma^{\circ}\) at C channels. On 7 June, when \(m_{\rm v}\) slightly decreased and sugar beet started growing (\(F_{\rm v}\sim\)0.1); \(r_{\rm s}\) between \(\sigma^{\circ}\) at some channels slightly increased (e.g., \(\sigma^{\circ}\) at C\({}_{\rm HH}\) and C\({}_{\rm VV}\)). Finally, on the 26 th of July \(\sigma^{\circ}\) of most of the bands were strongly correlated (\(r_{\rm s}>0.8\)). Whereas, lower correlations were observed among some \(\sigma^{\circ}\) at C\({}_{\rm HV}\) and \(\sigma^{\circ}\)\({}_{\rm pq}\) at L frequency (\(r_{\rm s}\sim\)0.8). The decreasing of \(m_{\rm v}\) caused a noticeable increasing of \(r_{\rm s}\) for all channel pairs. For the field 450 (Figure 9) \(r_{\rm s}\) domains were analyzed at three selected times: (i) on 13 June, when \(F_{\rm v}\sim\)0.9 and \(m_{\rm v}\sim\)0.06 m\({}^{3}\)m\({}^{-3}\); (ii) on 21 June, when \(F_{\rm v}\) slightly increased (\(F_{\rm v}\sim\)0.95) and \(m_{\rm v}\) considerably increased to \(\sim\)0.22 m\({}^{3}\)m\({}^{-3}\); and, (iii) on 26 July, when both \(F_{\rm v}\) and \(m_{\rm v}\) considerably decreased to \(\sim\)0.3 and \(\sim\)0.06 m\({}^{3}\)m\({}^{-3}\) respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \(\sigma^{\circ}\) vs. & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sugar**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Barley**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Maze**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Rape**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Wheat**} \\ \cline{2-10} \(LAI\) & \(r\) & \(p\)-Value & \(r\) & \(p\)-Value & \(r\) & \(p\)-Value & \(r\) & \(p\)-Value & \(r\) & \(p\)-Value \\ \hline \(X_{\rm HH}\) & 0.72 & 0.17 & 0.63 & \(\mathbf{4.7\times 10^{-3}}\) & - & - & - & 0.50 & \(2.5\times 10^{-2}\) \\ \(X_{\rm VV}\) & 0.70 & 0.19 & 0.61 & \(\mathbf{6.7\times 10^{-3}}\) & - & - & - & - & 0.51 & \(2.2\times 10^{-2}\) \\ \(C_{\rm HH}\) & 0.80 & \(1.0\times 10^{-1}\) & 0.32 & \(1.9\times 10^{-1}\) & 0.31 & \(6.2\times 10^{-1}\) & 0.31 & \(1.8\times 10^{-1}\) & \(\mathbf{0.64}\) & \(\mathbf{2.4\times 10^{-3}}\) \\ \(C_{\rm HV}\) & 0.91 & \(\mathbf{3.1\times 10^{-2}}\) & - & - & 0.64 & \(2.5\times 10^{-1}\) & - & - & 0.49 & \(2.7\times 10^{-2}\) \\ \(C_{\rm VV}\) & 0.80 & \(1.0\times 10^{-1}\) & 0.19 & \(4.5\times 10^{-1}\) & - & - & 0.21 & \(3.8\times 10^{-1}\) & 0.19 & \(4.3\times 10^{-1}\) \\ \(L_{\rm HH}\) & **0.98** & \(\mathbf{2.7\times 10^{-3}}\) & 0.53 & \(\mathbf{2.2\times 10^{-2}}\) & \(\mathbf{0.94}\) & \(\mathbf{1.9\times 10^{-2}}\) & 0.44 & \(5.0\times 10^{-2}\) & 0.38 & \(9.8\times 10^{-2}\) \\ \(L_{\rm HV}\) & **0.93** & \(\mathbf{2.1\times 10^{-2}}\) & **0.60** & \(\mathbf{7.9\times 10^{-3}}\) & **0.95** & \(\mathbf{1.2\times 10^{-2}}\) & **0.60** & \(\mathbf{4.7\times 10^{-3}}\) & 0.25 & \(3.0\times 10^{-1}\) \\ \(L_{\rm VV}\) & **0.89** & \(\mathbf{4.5\times 10^{-2}}\) & 0.32 & \(1.9\times 10^{-1}\) & 0.59 & \(2.9\times 10^{-1}\) & 0.28 & \(2.3\times 10^{-1}\) & - & - \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: \(r\) of \(\sigma^{\circ}\) vs. \(LAI\) for plots covered by vegetation.