MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141867522 · doi:10.1139/x06-030

Using multispectral satellite imagery to estimate leaf area and response to silvicultural treatments in loblolly pine stands

2006· article· en· W2141867522 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francisco Flores, H. Lee Allen, Heather Cheshire, J. Matthew Davis, Montserrat Fuentes, Daniel L. Kelting

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic MapperLeaf area indexLoblolly pineRemote sensingMultispectral ScannerEnvironmental sciencePixelMultispectral pattern recognitionSatellite imagerySatelliteMultispectral imageVegetation (pathology)Thematic mapForestryGeographyCartographyPinus <genus>AgronomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between leaf area index (LAI) of loblolly pine plantations and the broadband simple ratio (SR) vegetation index calculated from Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) data was examined. An equation was derived to estimate LAI from readily available Landsat 7 ETM+ data. The equation developed to predict LAI with Landsat 7 ETM+ data was tested with ground LAI measurements taken in 12 plots. The root mean square error of prediction was 0.29, an error of approximately 14% in prediction. The ability of Landsat 7 ETM+ data to consistently estimate SR over time was tested using two scenes acquired on different dates during the winter (December to early March). Comparison between the two images on a pixel-by-pixel basis showed that approximately 96% of the pixels had a difference of &lt;0.5 units of SR (approximately 0.3 units of LAI). When the comparison was made on a stand-by-stand basis (average stand SR), a maximum difference of 0.2 units of SR (approximately 0.12 units of LAI) was found. These results suggest that stand LAI of loblolly pine plantations can be accurately estimated from readily available remote sensing data and provide an opportunity to apply the findings from ecophysiological studies in field plots to forest management decisions at an operational scale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations36
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207