Using Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and Object-Based Image Analysis (OBIA) for Measuring Plant-Soil Feedback Effects on Crop Productivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned aerial system (UAS) acquired high-resolution optical imagery and object-based image analysis (OBIA) techniques have the potential to provide spatial crop productivity information. In general, plant-soil feedback (PSF) field studies are time-consuming and laborious which constrain the scale at which these studies can be performed. Development of non-destructive methodologies is needed to enable research under actual field conditions and at realistic spatial and temporal scales. In this study, the influence of six winter cover crop (WCC) treatments (monocultures Raphanus sativus, Lolium perenne, Trifolium repens, Vicia sativa and two species mixtures) on the productivity of succeeding endive (Cichorium endivia) summer crop was investigated by estimating crop volume. A three-dimensional surface and terrain model were photogrammetrically reconstructed from UAS imagery, acquired on 1 July 2015 in Wageningen, the Netherlands. Multi-resolution image segmentation (MIRS) and template matching algorithms were used in an integrated workflow to detect individual crops (accuracy = 99.8%) and delineate C. endivia crop covered area (accuracy = 85.4%). Mean crop area (R = 0.61) and crop volume (R = 0.71) estimates had strong positive correlations with in situ measured dry biomass. Productivity differences resulting from the WCC treatments were greater for estimated crop volume in comparison to in situ biomass, the legacy of Raphanus was most beneficial for estimated crop volume. The perennial ryegrass L. perenne treatment resulted in a significantly lower production of C. endivia. The developed workflow has potential for PSF studies as well as precision farming due to its flexibility and scalability. Our findings provide insight into the potential of UAS for determining crop productivity on a large 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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".