MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980893954 · doi:10.3390/rs11202419

Crop Yield Estimation Using Time-Series MODIS Data and the Effects of Cropland Masks in Ontario, Canada

2019· article· en· W2980893954 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jiangui Liu, Jiali Shang, Budong Qian, Ted Huffman, Yinsuo Zhang, Taifeng Dong, Qi Jing, Timothy A. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsCropEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)Yield (engineering)EstimationLinear regressionAgronomyGrain yieldNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexLeaf area indexMathematicsStatisticsMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the estimation of grain yields of three major annual crops in Ontario (corn, soybean, and winter wheat) using MODIS reflectance data extracted with a general cropland mask and crop-specific masks. Time-series two-band enhanced vegetation index (EVI2) was derived from the 8 day composite 250 m MODIS reflectance data from 2003 to 2016. Using a general cropland mask, the strongest positive linear correlation between crop yields and EVI2 was observed at the end of July to early August, whereas a negative correlation was observed in spring. Using crop-specific masks, the time of the strongest positive linear correlation for winter wheat was found between mid-May and early June, corresponding to peak growth stages of the crop. EVI2 derived at peak growth stages of a crop provided good predictive capability for grain yield estimation, with considerable inter-annual variation. A multiple linear regression model was established for county-level yield estimation using EVI2 at peak growth stages and the year as independent variables. The model accounted for the spatiotemporal variability of grain yields of about 30% and 47% for winter wheat, 63% and 65% for corn, and 59% and 64% for soybean using the general cropland mask and crop-specific masks, respectively. A negative correlation during the spring indicated that vegetation index extracted using a general cropland mask should be used with caution in regions with mixed crops, as factors other than the growth conditions of the targeted crops may also be captured by remote sensing 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations48
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207