Proximal and remote sensing based imaging technology to quantify herbicide responses in field crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of herbicides in agriculture has significantly increased in recent decades. While many herbicides improve the efficiency and efficacy of weed control, their excessive use at the wrong growth stage can cause crop foliar damage, higher input cost and negative environmental footprints. There are limited techniques to accurately monitor herbicide effects. Visual ratings are highly subjective and require extensive training or experience. High-throughput digital imaging is a promising tool to measure plant herbicide interaction in field crops. In this study, proximal and aerial based advanced sensors have been utilized to evaluate different herbicide modes-of-action in two model species, tame oat [ Avena sativa ; model for wild oat ( Avena fatua )] and oriental mustard [ Brassica juncea ; model for wild mustard ( Sinapis arvensis )]. The experimental trials were performed at three agro-climatic locations in Canada (Lethbridge (AB), Saskatoon (SK), and Lacombe (AB)). The proximal and UAV multispectral imagery data were collected for baseline (before treatment) and 1, 3, 7, 10, 14 and 21 days after treatments (DAT), alongside visual ratings. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Photochemical Reflectance Index, Chlorophyll Vegetation Index, and Optimized Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index were used to assess variation of different DAT pigment content (photosynthetic rate) and chlorosis (damage %) in plot vegetation. The variation in obtained temporal indices (NDVI) suggest that the developed technology has potential to replace visual ratings (R 2 ≈0.65-0.94) and can be used as a rapid screening tool for herbicide activity. Therefore, remote sensing tools could improve the precision and consistency of future herbicide assessments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".