'Laying in', or underpainting is discussed by the often interesting Stapleton Kearns on his blog of the same name
HERE. In the archive menu on the right of his site you will find further reading under 'Layering 2' and 'Two Colour Lay-in'. both earlier blog posts on the same topic
The blog is well worth a visit - as are Stape's musings on artists' pigments and a variety of other themes.
Contradictory recommendations by various writers are often polarised whether an artist is best served on the one hand, by beginning with the darks and working towards the lights, holding in check the fanfare colour touches, brightest highlights and darkest accents until the end of the painting, to be added effectively just before the signature goes on
and on the other hand, by establishing all those elements (the extremities of tone and hue for this particular painting) at an early stage, so that all the rest may be readily related to them, whether the painting is 'high key', or restrained in tone and colour.
...Any thoughts on this?
An additional thought to add to the Kearns' blog is Ken Howard's
recommendation that it is okay to leave things out, to move or exaggerate
elements of landscape, but not generally to add things that are not
within the artist's field of view. In other words, if it's not there, don't make it up.
This touches on one of the most challenging and pleasurable features of
painting landscape, apart from fresh air and 'love of the outdoors'.
That is, its versatility and adaptability to the painter's selection and
choice. Of course, it is possible to take creative liberties with
elements of a still life or a figure painting but those genres do not
perhaps as readily lend themselves to adaptation and selection to the
same degree as landscape while retaining an apparently realistic painting.