Comparison of single-point alfalfa yield models based on visual disease intensity and remote sensing assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field experiments were conducted to compare alfalfa yield models based on visual disease intensity and remote sensing assessments. A broad range of foliar disease levels in alfalfa was achieved by applying either one or two sprays of five different fungicides at Ames and Nashua, Iowa, United States. Disease incidence, disease severity, percent defoliation, and the percentage of sunlight (λ = 810 nm) reflected from alfalfa canopies were assessed weekly for a total of 16 alfalfa growth cycles. Single-point yield models based upon each assessment method were constructed and compared for assessments performed on the date of alfalfa harvest (H), as well as 1 to 5 weeks prior to harvest (H-1 to H-5). Significant relationships between alfalfa yield and assessment of disease incidence, disease severity, percent defoliation, and percent reflectance were obtained for 2, 2, 10, and 13 harvest dates, respectively. Significant single-point yield models based on disease incidence, disease severity, percent defoliation, and percent reflectance explained 43% to 55%, 40% to 50%, 44% to 66%, and 53% to 91% of the variation in alfalfa yields, respectively. Thus, this study demonstrated that remote sensing assessments had a better relationship with yield compared with the three visual disease assessment methods. Other key findings in this study were that damage coefficients relating percent defoliation to alfalfa yield increased nonlinearly as the site-specific attainable yield increased. This indicates that different locations, alfalfa growth cycles, and years each required a different yield model. Moreover, as alfalfa potential yield increases, the greater the return on investment would be from applying a fungicide or biocontrol agent that effectively controls foliar diseases of alfalfa. When data were combined across locations, alfalfa growth cycles, and years, standardized defoliation explained 52% of the variation in standardized yield, whereas standardized reflectance explained 70% of the variation in standardized yield.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".