Technical Note: Crop stress detection using AVIRIS hyperspectral imagery and artificial neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to compare the results of artificial neural network (ANN) and standard vegetation algorithm processing to distinguish nutrient stress from in-field controls, and determine whether nutrient stress might be distinguished from water stress in the same test field. The test site was the US Department of Agriculture's Variable Rate Application (VRAT) site, Shelton, Nebraska. The VRAT field was planted in corn with test plots that were differentially treated with nitrogen (N). The field contained four replicates, each with N treatments ranging from 0 kg ha−1 to 200 kg ha−1 in 50 kg ha−1 increments. Low-altitude (3 m pixel) Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) hyperspectral imagery (224 bands) was collected over the site. Ground data were collected to support image interpretation. An ANN was applied to the AVIRIS image data for detection of crop and water stress. Known vegetation indices were used as a baseline for comparison against ANN-based stress detection. The resulting comparison found that ANN methods provided a heightened capability to separate stressed crops from in-field, non-stressed controls and was sensitive to differences in nutrient- and water-stressed field regions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".