Improved Discrimination between Monocotyledonous and Dicotyledonous Plants for Weed Control Based on the Blue-Green Region of Ultraviolet-Induced Fluorescence Spectra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precision weeding by spot spraying in real time requires sensors to discriminate between weeds and crop without contact. Among the optical based solutions, the ultraviolet (UV) induced fluorescence of the plants appears as a promising alternative. In a first paper, the feasibility of discriminating between corn hybrids, monocotyledonous, and dicotyledonous weeds was demonstrated on the basis of the complete spectra. Some considerations about the different sources of fluorescence oriented the focus to the blue-green fluorescence (BGF) part, ignoring the chlorophyll fluorescence that is inherently more variable in time. This paper investigates the potential of performing weed/crop discrimination on the basis of several large spectral bands in the BGF area. A partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) was performed on a set of 1908 spectra of corn and weed plants over 3 years and various growing conditions. The discrimination between monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants based on the blue-green fluorescence yielded robust models (classification error between 1.3 and 4.6% for between-year validation). On the basis of the analysis of the PLS-DA model, two large bands were chosen in the blue-green fluorescence zone (400-425 nm and 425-490 nm). A linear discriminant analysis based on the signal from these two bands also provided very robust inter-year results (classification error from 1.5% to 5.2%). The same selection process was applied to discriminate between monocotyledonous weeds and maize but yielded no robust models (up to 50% inter-year error). Further work will be required to solve this problem and provide a complete UV fluorescence based sensor for weed-maize discrimination.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".