Assessing the Leaf Blade Nutrient Status of Pinot Noir Using Hyperspectral Reflectance and Machine Learning Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring grape nutrient status, from flowering to veraison, is important for viticulturists when implementing vineyard management strategies, in order to produce quality wines. However, traditional methods for measuring nutrient elements incur high labour costs. The aim of this study is to explore the potential of predicting grapevine leaf blade nutrient concentration based on hyperspectral data. Leaf blades were collected at two Pinot Noir commercial vineyards at Martinborough, New Zealand. The leaf blade spectral data were obtained with a handheld spectroradiometer, to evaluate surface reflectance and derivative spectra in the spectrum range between 400 and 2400 nm. Afterwards, leaf blades nutrient concentrations (N, P, K, Ca, and Mg) were measured, and their relationships with the hyperspectral data were modelled by machine learning models; partial least squares regression (PLSR), random forest regression (RFR), and support vector regression (SVR) were used. Pearson correlation and recursive feature elimination, based on cross-validation, were used as feature selection methods for RFR and SVR, to improve the model’s performance. The variable importance score of PLSR, and permutation variable importance of RFR and SVR, were used to determine the most sensitive wavelengths, or spectral regions related to each biochemical variable. The results showed that the best predictive performance for leaf blade N concentration was based on PLSR to raw reflectance data (R2 = 0.66; RMSE = 0.15%). The combination of support vector regression with the Pearson correlation selected method and second derivative reflectance provided a high accuracy for K and Ca modelling (R2 = 0.7; RMSE = 0.06%; R2 = 0.62; RMSE = 0.11%, respectively). However, the modelling performance for P and Mg, by different feature groups and variable selection methods, was poor (R2 = 0.15; RMSE = 0.02%; R2 = 0.43; RMSE = 0.43%, respectively). Thus, a larger dataset is needed for improving the prediction of P and Mg. The results indicated that for Pinot Noir leaf blades, raw reflectance data had potential for the prediction of N concentration, while the second-derivative spectra were more suitable to predict K and Ca. This study led to the provision of rapid and non-destructive measurements of grapevine leaf nutrient status.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".