MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947917197 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2019.1594176

Multistage Soybean Biomass Inversion Models and Spatiotemporal Analyses considering Microtopography at the Sub-Field Scale

2019· article· en· W2947917197 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mengyuan Xu, Xinle Zhang, Linghua Meng, Huanjun Liu, Yue Pan, Zhengchao Qiu, Haoxuan Yang, Zhanqian Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrowing seasonBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceVegetation (pathology)Spatial variabilitySpatial ecologyCurvaturePhysical geographyAtmospheric sciencesSoil scienceRemote sensingGeographyAgronomyMathematicsGeologyEcologyGeometryStatisticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crop biomass is an agricultural indicator of productivity, and knowledge of the temporal and spatial variation in biomass in different topography is critical for the application of precision management techniques. This study integrates microtopography with multitemporal remote sensing observations to reveal biomass- and yield-limiting variables. Three SPOT-6 high spatial resolution images and six topographic variables were combined to model the spatial variation in soybean biomass at multiple stages during the growing season. The results showed the following. (i) The multiple regression model for biomass estimation that combines topographic variables with vegetation indices can achieve higher accuracy than a vegetation index model. (ii) Biomass varied dramatically with topography during the growing season. (iii) Microtopographic variables, such as curvature and slope, had distinctive impacts on crop conditions over a growing season. Early in the growing season, sunny upper slopes produced more biomass than shady lower slopes, whereas this trend reversed over the season. Gentle concave slopes (–1.2 m−1 < curvature < 0 m−1) showed greater productivity later in the season, while slopes with high concavity (curvature < –1.2 m−1) or high convexity (curvature > 0.75 m−1) suppressed crop growth. These conclusions can be used directly to precisely manage nutrients and water applications.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207