Photogrammetry for assessment of pasture biomass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New tools are required to provide estimates of pasture biomass as current methods are time consuming and labour intensive. This proof-of-concept study tested the suitability of photogrammetry to estimate pasture height in a grazed dairy pasture. Images were obtained using a digital camera from one site on two separate occasions (May and June 2017). Photogrammetry-derived pasture height was estimated from digital surface models created using the photos. Pasture indices were also measured using two currently available methods: a Rising Plate Meter (RPM), and Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). Empirical pasture biomass measurements were taken using destructive sampling after all other measurements were made, and were used to evaluate the accuracy of the estimates from each method. There was a strong linear relationship between photogrammetry-derived plant height and actual biomass (R2=0.92May and 0.78June) and between RPM and actual biomass (R2=0.91May and 0.78June). The relationship between NDVI and actual biomass was relatively weaker (R2=0.65May and 0.66June). Photogrammetry could be an efficient way to measure pasture biomass with an accuracy comparable to that of the RPM but further work is required to confirm these preliminary findings.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".