Estimation of Plant Water Content of Agricultural Canopies Using Hyperspectral Remote Sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyperspectral models developed to estimate plant water content have had limited application under field conditions and have not been rigorously validated. A physical model using a spectrum matching technique was applied to hyperspectral data to directly calculate the canopy equivalent water thickness (EWT) using a look-up table approach. The objective of this study was to test the validity of this algorithm using plant water content information collected under field conditions, and to relate this to the needs of precision agriculture. Image data were acquired over two experimental test sites in Canada, near Clinton, Ontario and Indian Head, Saskatchewan, using the Probe-1 airborne hyperspectral sensor. Plant biomass samples were collected simultaneously from plots spanning fourteen fields of various crop types (wheat, canola, corn, beans and peas). The model was validated against EWT estimated from biomass samples. The model predicts EWT in the range found with all crop types pooled together, a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 26.8 % of the average. The model was sensitive to within-crop variability for broad leaf crops such as peas, corn, and beans (RMSE = 24.4%, 12.0, 21.8%, respectively).The RMSE for canola was relatively high (39.9%) as a result of a poor prediction at low water contents. The model proved a poor predictor of EWT in wheat (RMSE = 69.9%). EWT is related to plant biomass and leaf area index (LAI).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".