Assessment of Portable Chlorophyll Meters for Measuring Crop Leaf Chlorophyll Concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate measurement of leaf chlorophyll concentration (LChl) in the field using a portable chlorophyll meter (PCM) is crucial to support methodology development for mapping the spatiotemporal variability of crop nitrogen status using remote sensing. Several PCMs have been developed to measure LChl instantaneously and non-destructively in the field, however, their readings are relative quantities that need to be converted into actual LChl values using conversion functions. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between actual LChl and PCM readings obtained by three PCMs: SPAD-502, CCM-200, and Dualex-4. Field experiments were conducted in 2016 on four crops: corn (Zea mays L.), soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and canola (Brassica napus L.), at the Central Experimental Farm of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. To evaluate the impact of other factors (leaf internal structure, leaf pigments other than chlorophyll, and the heterogeneity of LChl distribution) on the conversion function, a global sensitivity analysis was conducted using the PROSPECT-D model to simulate PCM readings under different conditions. Results showed that Dualex-4 had a better performance for actual LChl measurement than SPAD-502 and CCM-200, using a general conversion function for all four crops tested. For SPAD-502 and CCM-200, the error in the readings increases with increasing LChl. The sensitivity analysis reveals that deviations from the calibration functions are more induced by non-uniform LChl distribution than leaf architectures. The readings of Dualex-4 can have a better ability to restrict these influences than those of the other two PCMs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".