Vegetation monitoring using multispectral sensors — best practices and lessons learned from high latitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Emerging drone technologies have the potential to revolutionise ecological monitoring. The rapid technological advances in recent years have dramatically increased affordability and ease of use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and associated sensors. Compact multispectral sensors, such as the Parrot Sequoia (Paris, France) and MicaSense RedEdge (Seattle WA, USA) capture spectrally accurate high-resolution (fine grain) imagery in visible and near-infrared parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, providing supplement to satellite and aircraft-based imagery. Observations of surface reflectance can be used to calculate vegetation indices such as the Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) for productivity estimates and vegetation classification. Despite the advances in technology, challenges remain in capturing consistently high-quality data, particularly when operating in extreme environments such as the high latitudes. Here, we summarize three years of ecological monitoring with drone-based multispectral sensors in the remote Canadian Arctic. We discuss challenges, technical aspects and practical considerations, and highlight best practices that emerged from our experience, including: flight planning, factoring in weather conditions, and geolocation and radiometric calibration. We propose a standardised methodology based on established principles from remote sensing and our collective field experiences, using the Parrot Sequoia sensor as an example. With these good practises, multispectral sensors can provide meaningful spatial data that is reproducible and comparable across space and time.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".