High-Resolution Flowering Index for Canola Yield Modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canola (Brassica napus), with its prominent yellow flowers, has unique spectral characteristics and necessitates special spectral indices to quantify the flowers. This study investigated four spectral indices for high-resolution RGB images for segmenting yellow flower pixels. The study compared vegetation indices to digitally quantify canola flower area to develop a seed yield prediction model. A small plot (2.75 m × 6 m) experiment was conducted at Kernen Research Farm, Saskatoon, where canola was grown under six row spacings and eight seeding rates with four replicates (192 plots). The flower canopy reflectance was imaged using a high-resolution (0.15 cm ground sampling distance) 100 MP iXU 1000 RGB sensor mounted on an unpiloted aerial vehicle (UAV). The spectral indices were evaluated for their efficiency in identifying canola flower pixels using linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Digitized flower pixel area was used as a predictor of seed yield to develop four models. Seventy percent of the data were used for model training and 30% for testing. Models were compared using performance metrics: coefficient of determination (R2) and root mean squared error (RMSE). The High-resolution Flowering Index (HrFI), a new flower index proposed in this study, was identified as the most accurate in detecting flower pixels, especially in high-resolution imagery containing within-canopy shadow pixels. There were strong, positive associations between digitized flower area and canola seed yield with the peak flowering timing having a greater R2 (0.82) compared to early flowering (0.72). Cumulative flower pixel area predicted 75% of yield. Our results indicate that the HrFI and Modified Yellowness Index (MYI) were better predictors of canola yield compared to the NDYI and RBNI (Red Blue Normalizing Index) as they were able to discriminate between canola petals and within-canopy shadows. We suggest further studies to evaluate the performance of the HrFI and MYI vegetation indices using medium-resolution UAV and satellite imagery.
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 | 0.001 | 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".