Assessing the Robustness of Vegetation Indices to Estimate Wheat N in Mediterranean Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remotely sensed vegetation indices have been extensively used to quantify plant and soil characteristics. The objectives of this study were to: (i) compare vegetation indices developed at different scales for measuring canopy N content (g∙N∙m−2) and concentration (%); and (ii) evaluate the effects of soil background reflectance, cultivar, illumination and atmospheric conditions on the ability of vegetation indices to estimate canopy N content. Data were collected from two rainfed field sites cropped to wheat in Southern Italy (Foggia) and in Southeastern Australia (Horsham). From spectral readings, 25 vegetation indices were calculated. The Perpendicular Vegetation Index showed the best prediction of plant N concentration (%) (r2 = 0.81; standard error (SE) = 0.41%; p < 0.001). The Canopy Chlorophyll Content Index showed the best predictive capability for canopy N content (g∙N∙m−2) (r2 = 0.73; SE = 0.603; p < 0.001). Canopy N content was best related to indices developed at the canopy scale and containing a red-edge wavelength. Canopy-scale indices were related to canopy N%, but such relationships needed to be normalized with biomass. Geographical location influenced mainly simple ratio or normalized indices, while indices that contained red-edge wavelengths were more robust and able to estimate canopy parameters more accurately.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".