Deep Learning-Based Estimation of Crop Biophysical Parameters Using Multi-Source and Multi-Temporal Remote Sensing Observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote sensing data are considered as one of the primary data sources for precise agriculture. Several studies have demonstrated the excellent capability of radar and optical imagery for crop mapping and biophysical parameter estimation. This paper aims at modeling the crop biophysical parameters, e.g., Leaf Area Index (LAI) and biomass, using a combination of radar and optical Earth observations. We extracted several radar features from polarimetric Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data and Vegetation Indices (VIs) from optical images to model crops’ LAI and dry biomass. Then, the mutual correlations between these features and Random Forest feature importance were calculated. We considered two scenarios to estimate crop parameters. First, Machine Learning (ML) algorithms, e.g., Support Vector Regression (SVR), Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), were utilized to estimate two crop biophysical parameters. To this end, crops’ dry biomass and LAI were estimated using three input data; (1) SAR polarimetric features; (2) spectral VIs; (3) integrating both SAR and optical features. Second, a deep artificial neural network was created. These input data were fed to the mentioned algorithms and evaluated using the in-situ measurements. These observations of three cash crops, including soybean, corn, and canola, have been collected over Manitoba, Canada, during the Soil Moisture Active Validation Experimental 2012 (SMAPVEX-12) campaign. The results showed that GB and XGB have great potential in parameter estimation and remarkably improved accuracy. Our results also demonstrated a significant improvement in the dry biomass and LAI estimation compared to the previous studies. For LAI, the validation Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) was reported as 0.557 m2/m2 for canola using GB, and 0.298 m2/m2 for corn using GB, 0.233 m2/m2 for soybean using XGB. RMSE was reported for dry biomass as 26.29 g/m2 for canola utilizing SVR, 57.97 g/m2 for corn using RF, and 5.00 g/m2 for soybean using GB. The results revealed that the deep artificial neural network had a better potential to estimate crop parameters than the ML algorithms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".