MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303945912 · doi:10.3390/land11101752

Estimating Groundnut Yield in Smallholder Agriculture Systems Using PlanetScope Data

2022· article· en· W4303945912 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Kpienbaareh, Kamaldeen Mohammed, Isaac Luginaah, Jinfei Wang, Rachel Bezner Kerr, Esther Lupafya, Laifolo Dakishoni

Bibliographic record

VenueLand · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNorges ForskningsrådBiodiversa+National Science Foundation
KeywordsYield (engineering)AgricultureMean squared errorMathematicsCrop yieldVegetation (pathology)StatisticsCoefficient of determinationLinear regressionAgronomyEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crop yield is related to household food security and community resilience, especially in smallholder agricultural systems. As such, it is crucial to accurately estimate within-season yield in order to provide critical information for farm management and decision making. Therefore, the primary objective of this paper is to assess the most appropriate method, indices, and growth stage for predicting the groundnut yield in smallholder agricultural systems in northern Malawi. We have estimated the yield of groundnut in two smallholder farms using the observed yield and vegetation indices (VIs), which were derived from multitemporal PlanetScope satellite data. Simple linear, multiple linear (MLR), and random forest (RF) regressions were applied for the prediction. The leave-one-out cross-validation method was used to validate the models. The results showed that (i) of the modelling approaches, the RF model using the five most important variables (RF5) was the best approach for predicting the groundnut yield, with a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.96 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.29 kg/ha, followed by the MLR model (R2 = 0.84, RMSE = 0.84 kg/ha); in addition, (ii) the best within-season stage to accurately predict groundnut yield is during the R5/beginning seed stage. The RF5 model was used to estimate the yield for four different farms. The estimated yields were compared with the total reported yields from the farms. The results revealed that the RF5 model generally accurately estimated the groundnut yields, with the margins of error ranging between 0.85% and 11%. The errors are within the post-harvest loss margins in Malawi. The results indicate that the observed yield and VIs, which were derived from open-source remote sensing data, can be applied to estimate yield in order to facilitate farming and food security planning.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207