Fresh Biomass Estimation in Heterogeneous Grassland Using Hyperspectral Measurements and Multivariate Statistical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate estimation of grassland biomass at their peak productivity can provide crucial information regarding the functioning and productivity of the rangelands. Hyperspectral remote sensing has proved to be valuable for estimation of vegetation biophysical parameters such as biomass using different statistical techniques. However, in statistical analysis of hyperspectral data, multicollinearity is a common problem due to large amount of correlated hyper-spectral reflectance measurements. The aim of this study was to examine the prospect of above ground biomass estimation in a heterogeneous Mediterranean rangeland employing multivariate calibration methods. Canopy spectral measurements were made in the field using a GER 3700 spectroradiometer, along with concomitant in situ measurements of above ground biomass for 170 sample plots. Multivariate calibrations including partial least squares regression (PLSR), principal component regression (PCR), and Least-Squared Support Vector Machine (LS-SVM) were used to estimate the above ground biomass. The prediction accuracy of the multivariate calibration methods were assessed using cross validated R2 and RMSE. The best model performance was obtained using LS_SVM and then PLSR both calibrated with first derivative reflectance dataset with R2CV=0.88 & 0.86 and RMSECV=1.15 & 1.07 respectively. The weakest prediction accuracy was appeared when PCR were used (R2CV = 0.31 and RMSECV= 2.48). The obtained results highlight the importance of multivariate calibration methods for biomass estimation when hyperspectral data are used.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".