Performance of cylindrical leaf wetness duration sensors in a tropical climate condition
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Leaf wetness duration (LWD) measurements are required for disease warning in several agricultural systems, since it is an important variable for the diagnose of plant disease epidemiology. The cylindrical sensor is an inexpensive and simple electronic LWD sensor initially designed to measure this variable for onions, however some studies show that it may be helpful for standard measurements in weather stations and also for different crops. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess their performance under tropical climate conditions, in Brazil, having as standard measurements those obtained by flat plate sensors, which have presented very good performance when compared with visual observations. Before field assessments, all LWD sensors used in our study (flat plates and cylinders) were white latex painted and submitted to a heat treatment. Laboratory tests were performed in order to determine the resistance threshold for the sensor to be considered wet and the time response of the sensors to wetness. In the field, all cylindrical sensors were initially deployed horizontally 30-cm above a turfgrass surface in order to assess the variability among them with respect to LWD measurements. The variability among the horizontal cylindrical sensors was reduced by using a specific resistance threshold for each sensor. The mean coefficient of variation (CV) of LWD data measured by the cylindrical sensors was 9.7%. After that, the cylindrical sensors were deployed at five different angles: 0º, 15º, 30º, 45º, and 60º. Data of measurements made at these angles were compared with the standard measurement, obtained by flat plate sensors at the same height and installed at 45º. The deployment angle had no systematic effect on LWD measurements for the local tropical conditions, since the correlations between flat plate and elevated cylinder measurements were very high (R² > 0.91), which differed from the results obtained under temperate climatic conditions, where LWD measured by cylinders were two hours longer than by flat plate sensors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».