Non-destructive estimation of wheat leaf chlorophyll content from hyperspectral measurements through analytical model inversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Optimizing nitrogen (N) fertilization in crop production by in-season measurements of crop N status may improve fertilizer N use efficiency. Hyperspectral measurements may be used to assess crop N status indirectly by estimating leaf and canopy chlorophyll content. This study evaluated the ability of the PROSAIL canopy-level reflectance model to predict leaf chlorophyll content of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) during the growth stages between pre-tillering (Zadoks Growth Stage (ZGS 15)) to booting (ZGS50). Spring wheat was grown under different N fertility rates (0–200 kg N ha−1) in 2002. Canopy reflectance, leaf chlorophyll content, N content and leaf area index (LAI) values were measured. There was a weakly significant trend for the PROSAIL model to over-estimate LAI and under-estimate leaf chlorophyll content. To compensate for this interdependency by the model, a canopy chlorophyll content parameter (the product of leaf chlorophyll content and LAI) was calculated. The estimation accuracy for canopy chlorophyll content was generally low earlier in the growing season. This failure of the PROSAIL model to estimate leaf and canopy variables could be attributed to model sensitivity to canopy architecture. Earlier in the growing season, full canopy closure was not yet achieved, resulting in a non-homogenous canopy and strong soil background interference. The canopy chlorophyll content parameter was predicted more accurately than leaf chlorophyll content alone at booting (ZGS 45). A strong relationship between canopy chlorophyll content and canopy N content at ZGS 45 indicates that the PROSAIL model may be used as a tool to predict wheat N status from canopy reflectance measurements at booting or later. Acknowledgments The New Brunswick Soil and Crop Improvement Association, Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development Fund, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada funded the study. We are grateful to Dr Stéphane Jacquemoud and Dr Cédric Bacour for providing us with the most recent source codes of the models and valuable advice, to Steven Tanner and Gautier Guerin for assistance with the field data collection and to Karen Terry and Mona Levesque for sample analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".