MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Avaliação do índice de área foliar e índice de área da planta em floresta seca utilizando modelos simplificados em imagens de alta resolução com o uso de VANT

2022· article· pt· W4297691281 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hyperspectral Remote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLeaf Properties and Growth Measurement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeaf area indexNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexPhysicsForestryMathematicsGeographyHorticultureBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O sensoriamento remoto tem possibilitado a aplicação de modelos para estimar variáveis ambientais, dentre eles o índice de área foliar (LAI) e o índice de área da planta (PAI), importantes para avaliação da sazonalidade da vegetação, principalmente em florestas secas. Assim, objetivou-se avaliar o LAI e PAI na caatinga usando imagens aéreas de alta resolução obtidas com um veículo aéreo não tripulado (VANT). Em área de caatinga preservada foram realizados voos com o VANT acoplado com câmeras RGB e RGN. Utilizou-se modelos para estimativa do LAI e PAI tendo como parâmetro de entrada o NDVI. Dados de LAI e PAI a partir do satélite Landsat-8 foram usados para comparação entre os produtos obtidos pelo VANT. A avaliação do NDVI ocorreu por regressão linear (R2=0,993), obtendo NDVI médio da Caatinga de 0,14 e 0,38 com os dados Landsat-8 nos períodos seco e chuvoso; 0,12 e 0,07 com a câmera RGB e RGN do VANT nos períodos seco e 0,65 e 0,27 para período chuvoso. Os dados LAI e o PAI (m2 m-2) representaram bem a área em estudo, obtendo R2=0,992 e R2=0,993 para LAI e PAI, respectivamente. O LAI médio da Caatinga foi 0,19 (período seco) e 0,80 (período chuvoso) pelo Landsat-8; 0,26 e 0,14 com a câmera RGB e RGN do VANT nos períodos secos e 2,18 e 0,48 para o período chuvoso. Já o PAI, os valores médios foram 1,39 e 2,02 com os dados Landsat-8 nos períodos seco e chuvoso; 1,46 e 1,34 com a câmera RGB e RGN do VANT nos períodos seco e 3,42 e 1,69 para o período chuvoso. Desse modo, os modelos calculados com imagens VANT para estimativa do LAI e do PAI da caatinga podem ser aplicados em imagens de alta resolução espacial obtidas em câmeras multiespectrais acopladas em VANT, obtendo resultados satisfatórios. Evaluation of leaf area index and plant area index in dry forest using simplified models in high resolution images using UAVRemote sensing has enabled the application of models to estimate environmental variables, including the leaf area index (LAI) and the plant area index (PAI), which are important for evaluating the seasonality of vegetation, especially in dry forests. Thus, the objective was to evaluate the LAI and PAI in the caatinga using high resolution aerial images obtained with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). In a preserved caatinga area, flights were carried out with the UAV coupled with RGB and RGN cameras. Models were used to estimate the LAI and PAI having the NDVI as input parameter. LAI and PAI data from the Landsat-8 satellite were used to compare the products obtained by the UAV. The evaluation of the NDVI was carried out by linear regression (R2=0.993), obtaining an average NDVI of the Caatinga of 0.14 and 0.38 with the Landsat-8 data in the dry and rainy periods; 0.12 and 0.07 with the UAV's RGB and RGN camera in the dry season and 0.65 and 0.27 for the rainy season. The LAI and PAI data (m2 m-2) represented the study area well, obtaining R2=0.992 and R2=0.993 for LAI and PAI, respectively. The average LAI of the Caatinga was 0.19 (dry season) and 0.80 (rainy season) by Landsat-8; 0.26 and 0.14 with the UAV's RGB and RGN camera in the dry season and 2.18 and 0.48 for the rainy season. As for the PAI, the average values were 1.39 and 2.02 with the Landsat-8 data in the dry and rainy seasons; 1.46 and 1.34 with the UAV's RGB and RGN camera in the dry season and 3.42 and 1.69 for the rainy season. Thus, the models calculated with UAV images to estimate the LAI and PAI of the caatinga can be applied to high spatial resolution images obtained from multispectral cameras coupled to UAVs, obtaining satisfactory results.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.213 · 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