MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2101144152 · doi:10.82308/3826

Artificial intelligence analysis of hyperspectral remote sensing data for management of water, weed, and nitrogen stresses in corn fields

2005· article· en· W2101144152 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tahir Waheed

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeedWeed controlIrrigationRandomized block designSpectroradiometerAgronomyGrowing seasonHyperspectral imagingEnvironmental scienceMathematicsPrecision agricultureGeographyRemote sensingAgricultureBiologyPhysicsReflectivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the possibility of using ground-based remotely sensed hyperspectral observations with a special emphasis on detection of water, weed and nitrogen stresses contributing towards in-season decision support for precision crop management (PCM). A three factor split-split-plot experiment, with four randomized blocks as replicates, was established during the growing seasons of 2003 and 2004. Corn (Zea mays L.) hybrid DKC42-22 was grown because this hybrid is a good performer on light soils in Quebec. There were twelve 12 x 12m plots in a block (one replication per treatment per block) and the total number of plots was 48. Water stress was the main factor in the experiment. A drip irrigation system was laid out and each block was split into irrigated and non-irrigated halves. The second main factor of the experiment was weeds with two levels i.e. full weed control and no weed control. Weed treatments were assigned randomly by further splitting the irrigated and non-irrigated sub-blocks into two halves. Each of the weed treatments was furthermore split into three equal sub-sub-plots for nitrogen treatments (third factor of the experiment). Nitrogen was applied at three levels i.e. 50, 150 and 250 kg N ha-1 (Quebec norm is between 120-160 kg N ha-1). The hyperspectral data were recorded (spectral resolution = 1 nm) mid-day (between 1000 and 1400 hours) with a FieldSpec FR spectroradiometer over a spectral range of 400-2500 run at three growth stages namely: early growth, tasseling and full maturity, in each of the growing season. There are two major original contributions in this thesis: First is the development of a hyperspectral data analysis procedure for separating visible (400-700 nm), near-infrared (700-1300 nm) and mid-infrared (1300-2500 nm) regions of the spectrum for use in discriminant analysis procedure. In addition, of all the spectral band-widths analyzed, seven waveband-aggregates were identified using STEPDISC procedure, which were the most effective for classifying combined water, weed, and nitrogen stress. The second contribution is the successful classification of hyperspectral observations acquired over an agricultural field, using three innovative artificial intelligence approaches; support vector machines (SVM), genetic algorithms (GA) and decision tree (DT) algorithms. These AI approaches were used to evaluate a combined effect of water, weed and nitrogen stresses in corn and of all the three AI approaches used, SVM produced the best results (overall accuracy ranging from 88% to 100%). The general conclusion is that the conventional statistical and artificial intelligence techniques used in this study are all useful for quickly mapping combined affects of irrigation, weed and nitrogen stresses (with overall accuracies ranging from 76% to 100%). These approaches have strong potential and are of great benefit to those investigating the in-season impact of irrigation, weed and nitrogen management for corn crop production and other environment related challenges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicRemote Sensing in Agriculture→French-language works237,207→