MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969077079 · doi:10.4141/p05-017

Non-destructive estimation of potato leaf chlorophyll and protein contents from hyperspectral measurements using the PROSPECT radiative transfer model

2006· article· en· W1969077079 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Botha, Bernie J. Zebarth, Brigitte Leblon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanopyChlorophyllAtmospheric radiative transfer codesHyperspectral imagingSolanum tuberosumCultivarHorticultureBotanyAgronomyEnvironmental scienceMathematicsBiologyRadiative transferRemote sensingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimizing nitrogen (N) fertilization in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) production by in-season measurements of potato N status may improve fertilizer N-use efficiency. Hyperspectral leaf reflectance and transmittance measurements can be used to assess potato N status by estimating leaf chlorophyll or N contents. This study evaluated the ability of the inverted PROSPECT radiative transfer model to predict leaf chlorophyll and N (as protein) contents. Trials were conducted with Russet Burbank and Shepody potato cultivars under different N fertility rates (0 to 300 kg N ha -1 ) in 2001 and 2002. Leaf reflectance and transmittance, leaf chlorophyll content, and leaf protein content were measured. Leaf chlorophyll and protein content correlated significantly (r = 0.16*, n = 584), but the relationship was strongly dependent on sampling date (r = 0.55* to 0.92*). Chlorophyll content was predicted with reasonable accuracy by the model, particularly in 2002. The low estimation accuracy in 2001 was probably related to sample variability induced by prolonged drought conditions. Protein content could not be predicted with any degree of accuracy by the model. The relative success of the PROSPECT model to predict chlorophyll content, and the good correlation between leaf chlorophyll and leaf N, suggests that it might be used as a component of a more complex leaf-canopy reflectance model to estimate chlorophyll content from reflectance spectra at the canopy level. Key words: Leaf reflectance, PROSPECT radiative transfer model, Solanum tuberosum

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207