MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040014370 · doi:10.1080/01431161.2013.828183

Estimation of foliar pigment concentration in floating macrophytes using hyperspectral vegetation indices

2013· article· en· W2040014370 on OpenAlexafffund
Cameron Proctor, Yuhong He

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingSpectroradiometerMacrophyteVegetation (pathology)PigmentEnvironmental sciencePhotosynthetic pigmentChlorophyllWetlandAquatic plantChlorophyll aBotanyReflectivityEcologyChemistryRemote sensingBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foliar pigment concentrations of chlorophylls and cartenoids are important indicators of plant physiological status, photosynthesis rate, and net primary productivity. Although the utility of hyperspectral derived vegetation indices for estimating foliar pigment concentration has been documented for many vegetation types, floating macrophytes have not been assessed despite their ecological importance. This study surveyed 39 wetland species (12 floating macrophytes (FM), 8 grasses/sedges/rushes (GSR), and 19 herbs/wildflowers (HWF)) to determine whether foliar pigment concentrations could be estimated from hyperspectral reflectance. Hyperspectral reflectance of samples was recorded using an ASD FieldSpec3 Max portable spectroradiometer with the plant probe attachment or via a typical laboratory set-up. A semi-empirical relationship was established using either a linear, second-degree polynomial or logarithmic function between 13 candidate vegetation indices and chl-a, chl-b, Car, and chl-a + b pigment concentrations. Vegetation indices R-M, CI-Red, and MTCI were strongly correlated with foliar pigment concentrations using a linear fitting function. Chl-a + b and chl-b concentrations for all samples were reasonably estimated by the R-M index (R2 = 0.66 and 0.64), although Chl-a and Car concentration estimates using CI-Red were weaker (R2 = 0.63 and 0.51). Regression results indicate that pooled samples to estimate individual foliar pigments were less correlated than when each type of vegetation type was treated separately. For instance, chl-a + b was best estimated by CI-Red for FM (R2 = 0.80), MTCI for HWF (R2 = 0.77), and R-M for GSR (R2 = 0.67). Although floating macrophytes feature unique adaptions to their aquatic environment, their foliar pigment concentrations and spectral signatures were comparable to other wetland vegetation types. Overall, vegetation indices that exploit the red-edge region were a reasonable compromise, having good explanatory power for estimation of foliar pigments across the sampled wetland vegetation types and with CI-Red the best suited index for floating macrophytes.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207