MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094102925 · doi:10.3390/s20216006

Generating Time-Series LAI Estimates of Maize Using Combined Methods Based on Multispectral UAV Observations and WOFOST Model

2020· article· en· W3094102925 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhiqiang Cheng, Jihua Meng, Jiali Shang, Jiangui Liu, Jianxi Huang, Yanyou Qiao, Budong Qian, Qi Jing, Taifeng Dong, Lihong Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDepartment of Education, Fujian ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLeaf area indexData assimilationMultispectral imageRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceMean squared errorGrowing seasonScale (ratio)MathematicsMeteorologyAgronomyGeographyStatisticsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Green leaf area index (LAI) is an important variable related to crop growth. Accurate and timely information on LAI is essential for developing suitable field management strategies to mitigate risk and boost yield. Several remote sensing (RS) based methods have been recently developed to estimate LAI at the regional scale. However, the performance of these methods tends to be affected by the quality of RS data, especially when time-series LAI are required. For crop LAI estimation, supplementary growth information from crop model is helpful to address this issue. In this study, we focus on the regional-scale LAI estimations of spring maize for the entire growth season. Using time-series multispectral RS data acquired by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and the World Food Studies (WOFOST) crop model, three methods were applied at different crop growth stages: empirical method using vegetation index (VI), data assimilation method and hybrid method. The VI-based method and assimilation method were used to generate time-series LAI estimations for the whole crop growth season. Then, a hybrid method specially for the late-stage LAI retrieval was developed by integrating WOFOST model and data assimilation. Using field-collected LAI data in Hongxing Farm in 2014, the performances of these three methods were evaluated. At the early stage, the VI-based method (R2 = 0.63, RMSE = 0.16, n = 36) achieved higher accuracy than the assimilation method (R2 = 0.54, RMSE = 0.52, n = 36), whereas at the mid stage, the assimilation method (R2 = 0.63, RMSE = 0.46, n = 28) showed higher accuracy than the VI-based method (R2 = 0.41, RMSE = 0.51, n = 28). At the late stage, the hybrid method yielded the highest accuracy (R2 = 0.63, RMSE = 0.46, n = 29), compared with the VI-based method (R2 = 0.19, RMSE = 0.43, n = 28) and the assimilation method (R2 = 0.20, RMSE = 0.44, n = 29). Based on the results above, we considered a combination of the three methods, i.e., the VI-based method for the early stage, the assimilation method for the mid stage, and the hybrid method for the late stage, as an ideal strategy for spring-maize LAI estimation for the entire growth season of 2014 in Hongxing Farm, and the accuracy of the combined method over the whole growth season is higher than that of any single method.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207