Field-Scale Crop Seeding Date Estimation from MODIS Data and Growing Degree Days in Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information on crop seeding date is required in many applications such as crop management and yield forecasting. This study presents a novel method to estimate crop seeding date at the field level from time-series 250-m Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data and growing degree days (GDD; base 5 ºC; ºC-days). The start of growing season (SOS) was first derived from time-series EVI2 (two-band Enhanced Vegetation Index) calculated from a MODIS 8-day composite surface reflectance product (MOD09Q1; Collection 6). Based on GDD calculated from the Daymet gridded estimates of daily weather parameters, a simple model was developed to establish a linkage between the observed seeding date and the SOS. Calibration and validation of the model was conducted on three major crops, spring wheat, canola and oats in the Province of Manitoba, Canada. The estimated SOS had a strong linear correlation with the observed seeding date; with a deviation of a few days depending on the year. The seeding date of the three crops can be calculated from the SOS by adjusting the number of days needed to accumulate GDD (AGDD) for emergence. The overall root-mean-square-difference (RMSD) of the estimated seeding date was less than 10 days. Validation showed that the accuracy of the estimated seeding date was crop-type independent. The developed method is useful for estimating the historical crop seeding date from remote sensing data in Canada to support studies of the interactions among seeding date, crop management and crop yield under climate change. It is anticipated that this method can be adapted to other crops in other locations using the same or different satellite data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".