## 3 Results
### Analysis of Absorption Feature Parameters  
The absorption features parameters between the different treatments are shown in Table 6. Compared with CK, the parameters A1, A2, A4, D2, A5, and D3 of T1 and T2 decreased significantly. There were also remarkable differences in absorption features between T1 and T2. The area of the first absorption feature of T2 was lower than that of T1. For instance, compared with T1, the parameter A1 of T2 decreased by 6.34%, 9.21%, and 7.82%, while A2 of T2 decreased by 8.11%, 4.43%, and 4.40% at DAH 14d, DAH 21d, and DAH 28d (2016), respectively. It was also found that the area of the right part and depth of the second absorption feature of T2 were lower than those of T1. Compared with T1, the parameter A4 of T2 decreased by 9.21%, 5.66%, and 18.11%, while D2 of T2 decreased by 20.59%, 13.79%, and 8.33% at DAH 14d, DAH 21d, and DAH 28d (2016), respectively. Furthermore, the area of the left part and depth of the third absorption feature of T2 were lower than those of T1. More specifically, compared with T1, A5 of T2 decreased by 10.90%, 14.20%, and 4.58%, while D3 of T2 decreased by 15.38%, 18.18%, and 23.81% at DAH 14d, DAH 21d, DAH 28d (2016), respectively. The distribution of absorption features in 2017 was also analyzed, which was consistent with that in 2016. All results suggest that an increase in diffuse radiation fraction could change the absorption features of the rice canopy remarkably. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Years**} & **Days after** & **Treatments** & \(\lambda_{0}\)**(nm)** & \(D\lambda\)\(\ast\)\(10^{2}\)**(nm\({}^{-1}\))** & \(\alpha_{0}\) & \(\sigma\)**(nm)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{2016} & \multirow{4}{*}{DAH 14 d} & CK & 688 \(\pm\) 1.2 a & 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 4.61 \(\pm\) 0.07 a \\  & & T1 & 690 \(\pm\) 0.8 b & 0.92 \(\pm\) 0.09 b & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.03 b & 4.65 \(\pm\) 0.05 a \\  & & T2 & 690 \(\pm\) 1.2 b & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.08 c & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.04 c & 4.63 \(\pm\) 0.05 a \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{4}{*}{DAH 21 d} & CK & 685 \(\pm\) 1.9 a & 0.55 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 0.26 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 4.70 \(\pm\) 0.04 a \\  & & T1 & 687 \(\pm\) 1.1 b & 0.64 \(\pm\) 0.06 b & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.03 b & 4.71 \(\pm\) 0.06 a \\  & & T2 & 688 \(\pm\) 1.1 c & 0.75 \(\pm\) 0.06 c & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.03 c & 4.69 \(\pm\) 0.03 a \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{4}{*}{DAH 28 d} & CK & 684 \(\pm\) 2.3 a & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 4.68 \(\pm\) 0.05 a \\  & & T1 & 686 \(\pm\) 0.9 b & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.04 b & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 4.73 \(\pm\) 0.03 b \\  & & T2 & 686 \(\pm\) 1.3 b & 0.58 \(\pm\) 0.05 b & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.03 b & 4.74 \(\pm\) 0.03 b \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{2017} & \multirow{4}{*}{DAH 14 d} & CK & 684 \(\pm\) 0.9 a & 0.70 \(\pm\) 0.09 a & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 4.70 \(\pm\) 0.03 a \\  & & T1 & 689 \(\pm\) 1.5 b & 0.85 \(\pm\) 0.06 b & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.04 b & 4.74 \(\pm\) 0.07 b \\ \cline{1-1}  & & T2 & 688 \(\pm\) 0.9 b & 0.91 \(\pm\) 0.03 c & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.01 c & 4.85 \(\pm\) 0.03 c \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{4}{*}{DAH 21 d} & CK & 683 \(\pm\) 1.7 a & 0.66 \(\pm\) 0.08 a & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 4.74 \(\pm\) 0.05 a \\ \cline{1-1}  & & T1 & 686 \(\pm\) 1.5 b & 0.76 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.04 b & 4.72 \(\pm\) 0.07 a \\ \cline{1-1}  & & T2 & 687 \(\pm\) 0.5 b & 0.81 \(\pm\) 0.06 b & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.03 c & 4.68 \(\pm\) 0.02 b \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & \multirow{4}{*}{DAH 28 d} & CK & 682 \(\pm\) 0.8 a & 0.65 \(\pm\) 0.10 a & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 4.63 \(\pm\) 0.06 a \\ \cline{1-1}  & & T1 & 686 \(\pm\) 1.4 b & 0.76 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.06 ab & 4.62 \(\pm\) 0.04 a \\ \cline{1-1}  & & T2 & 685 \(\pm\) 1.3 c & 0.71 \(\pm\) 0.09 b & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.05 b & 4.77 \(\pm\) 0.03 b \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Red-edge parameters of rice canopy spectra between different treatments.