High-Throughput UAV Image-Based Method Is More Precise Than Manual Rating of Herbicide Tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional visual rating system is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and prone to human error. Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery-based vegetation indices (VI) have potential applications in high-throughput plant phenotyping. The study objective is to determine if UAV imagery provides accurate and consistent estimations of crop injury from herbicide application and its potential as an alternative to visual ratings. The study was conducted at the Kernen Crop Research Farm, University of Saskatchewan in 2016 and 2017. Fababean (Vicia faba L.) crop tolerance to nine herbicide tank mixtures was evaluated with 2 rates distributed in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 4 blocks. The trial was imaged using a multispectral camera with a ground sample distance (GSD) of 1.2 cm, one week after the treatment application. Visual ratings of growth reduction and physiological chlorosis were recorded simultaneously with imaging. The optimized soil-adjusted vegetation index (OSAVI) was calculated from the thresholded orthomosaics. The UAV-based vegetation index (OSAVI) produced more precise results compared to visual ratings for both years. The coefficient of variation (CV) of OSAVI was ~1% when compared to 18-43% for the visual ratings. Furthermore, Tukey’s honestly significance difference (HSD) test yielded a more precise mean separation for the UAV-based vegetation index than visual ratings. The significant correlations between OSAVI and the visual ratings from the study suggest that undesirable variability associated with visual assessments can be minimized with the UAV-based approach. UAV-based imagery methods had greater precision than the visual-based ratings for crop herbicide damage. These methods have the potential to replace visual ratings and aid in screening crops for herbicide tolerance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".