Estimation of forage biomass and vegetation cover in grasslands using UAV imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grasslands are among the most widespread ecosystems on Earth and among the most degraded. Their characterization and monitoring are generally based on field measurements, which are incomplete spatially and temporally. The recent advent of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) provides data at unprecedented spatial and temporal resolutions. This study aims to test and compare three approaches based on multispectral imagery acquired by UAV to estimate forage biomass or vegetation cover in grasslands. The study site is composed of 30 pasture plots (25 × 50 m), 5 bare soil plots (25 x 50), and 6 control plots (5 × 5 m) on a 14-ha field maintained at various biomass levels by grazing rotations and clipping over a complete growing season. A total of 14 flights were performed. A first approach based on structure from motion was used to generate a volumetric-based biomass estimation model (R2 of 0.93 and 0.94 for fresh biomass [FM] and dry biomass [DM], respectively). This approach is not very sensitive to low vegetation levels but is accurate for FM estimation greater than 0.5 kg/m2 (0.1 kg DM/m2). The Green Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (GNDVI) was selected to develop two additional approaches. One is based on a regression biomass prediction model (R2 of 0.80 and 0.66 for FM and DM, respectively) and leads to an accurate estimation at levels of FM lower than 3 kg/m2 (0.6 kg DM/m2). The other approach is based on a classification of vegetation cover from clustering of GNDVI values in four classes. This approach is more qualitative than the other ones but more robust and generalizable. These three approaches are relatively simple to use and applicable in an operational context. They are also complementary and can be adapted to specific applications in grassland characterization.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".