MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2602239080 · doi:10.3390/rs9030291

Limited Effects of Water Absorption on Reducing the Accuracy of Leaf Nitrogen Estimation

2017· article· en· W2602239080 sur OpenAlexaff
Jun Wang, Jing M. Chen, Weimin Ju, Feng Qiu, Qian Zhang, Meihong Fang, Fenge Chen

Notice bibliographique

RevueRemote Sensing · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
Mots-clésNitrogenLeaf area indexMean squared errorEnvironmental sciencePhotochemical Reflectance IndexPartial least squares regressionSpectral indexSpectral lineRemote sensingChemistryMathematicsBotanyNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexStatisticsBiologyPhysicsGeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Nitrogen is an essential nutrient in many terrestrial ecosystems because it affects vegetation’s primary production. Due to the variety of nitrogen-containing substances and the differences in their composition across species, statistical approaches are now dominant in remote sensing retrieval of leaf nitrogen content. Many studies remove spectral regions characterized by strong water absorptions before retrieving nitrogen content, because water is believed to mask the absorption features of nitrogen. The objectives of this study are to discuss the necessity of this practice and to explore how water absorption affects leaf nitrogen estimation. Spectral measurements and chemical analyses for Maize, Sawtooth Oak, and Sweetgum leaves were carried out in 2014. The leaf optical properties model PROSPECT5 was used to eliminate the influences of water on the measured reflectance spectra. The inversion accuracy of PROPECT5 for chlorophyll, carotenoid, water, and dry matter of Maize was also discussed. Measured, simulated, and water-removed spectra were used to: (1) find the optimal nitrogen-related spectral index; and (2) regress with the area-based leaf nitrogen concentration (LNC) using the partial least square regression technique (PLSR). Two types of spectral indices were selected in this study: Normalized Difference Spectral Index (NDSI) and Ratio Spectral Index (RSI). Additionally, first-order derivative forms of measured, simulated, and water-removed spectra were devised to search for the optimal spectral indices. Finally, species-specific optimal indices and cross-species optimal indices, as well as their root mean square errors (RMSE) and coefficients of determination (R2), were obtained. The Ending Top Percentile (ETP), an indicator of the performance of cross-species optimal indices, was also calculated. PLSR was combined with leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV) for each species. The predicted root mean square errors (RMSEP) and predicted R2 were finally calculated. The results showed that chlorophyll, carotenoid, and water contents could be estimated with R2 of 0.75, 0.59, and 0.69, respectively, which were acceptable for fresh leaves. The dry matter was retrieved with a relatively lower accuracy because of the fixed absorption coefficients adopted by PROSPECT5. The performances of species-specific optimal indices using water-free spectra were comparable to or worse than the corresponding indices derived with measured or simulated spectra. Compared with measured spectra, ETP did not change much after the effects of water were removed, and the R2 between cross-species optimal spectral indices and area-based LNC for Sawtooth Oak and Sweetgum decreased while it remained almost the same for Maize, suggesting that the water-removed cross-species optimal indices were inferior to the corresponding optimal indices found without water removal. ETP was larger than 30% for all spectra, demonstrating the non-existence of common optimal NDSI or RSI for the three species. After water removal, the accuracy of PLSR for Sawtooth Oak and Sweetgum decreased and increased negligibly for Maize. The results suggest that water absorption has limited effects on reducing the accuracy of leaf nitrogen estimation. On the contrary, the accuracy may decrease due to the loss of spectral information caused by the removal of water-sensitive spectral regions.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,295
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,310

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,239
Écart entre enseignants0,228 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations17
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRemote SensingMême sujetRemote Sensing in AgricultureTravaux en français237 207