Spatial Pattern of Weeds Based on Multispecies Infestation Maps Created by Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weeds are often spatially aggregated in maize fields, and the level of aggregation varies across and within fields. Several annual weed species are present in maize fields before postemergence herbicide application, and herbicides applied will control several species at a time. The goal of this study was to assess the spatial distribution of multispecies weed infestation in maize fields. Ground-based imagery was used to map weed infestations in rain-fed maize fields. Image segmentation was used to extract weed cover information from geocoded images, and an expert-based threshold of 0.102% weed cover was used to generate maps of weed presence/absence. From 19 site-years, 13 (68%) demonstrated a random spatial distribution, whereas six site-years demonstrated an aggregated spatial pattern of either monocotyledons, dicotyledons, or both groups. The results of this study indicated that monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous weed groups were not spatially segregated, but discriminating these weed groups slightly increased the chances of detecting an aggregated pattern. It was concluded that weeds were not always spatially aggregated in maize fields. These findings emphasize the need for techniques allowing the assessment of weed aggregation prior to conducting site-specific weed management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".