A Machine Learning Framework to Predict Nutrient Content in Valencia-Orange Leaf Hyperspectral Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a framework based on machine learning algorithms to predict nutrient content in leaf hyperspectral measurements. This is the first approach to evaluate macro- and micronutrient content with both machine learning and reflectance/first-derivative data. For this, citrus-leaves collected at a Valencia-orange orchard were used. Their spectral data was measured with a Fieldspec ASD FieldSpec® HandHeld 2 spectroradiometer and the surface reflectance and first-derivative spectra from the spectral range of 380 to 1020 nm (640 spectral bands) was evaluated. A total of 320 spectral signatures were collected, and the leaf-nutrient content (N, P, K, Mg, S, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn) was associated with them. For this, 204,800 (320 × 640) combinations were used. The following machine learning algorithms were used in this framework: k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN), Lasso Regression, Ridge Regression, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Decision Tree (DT), and Random Forest (RF). The training methods were assessed based on Cross-Validation and Leave-One-Out. The Relief-F metric of the algorithms’ prediction was used to determine the most contributive wavelength or spectral region associated with each nutrient. This approach was able to return, with high predictions (R2), nutrients like N (0.912), Mg (0.832), Cu (0.861), Mn (0.898), and Zn (0.855), and, to a lesser extent, P (0.771), K (0.763), and S (0.727). These accuracies were obtained with different algorithms, but RF was the most suitable to model most of them. The results indicate that, for the Valencia-orange leaves, surface reflectance data is more suitable to predict macronutrients, while first-derivative spectra is better linked to micronutrients. A final contribution of this study is the identification of the wavelengths responsible for contributing to these predictions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".