MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4324148009 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2023.1087239

The effects of sampling and instrument orientation on LiDAR data from crop plots

2023· article· en· W4324148009 on OpenAlexaff
Azar Khorsandi, Karen Tanino, Scott D. Noble

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Plant Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarSampling (signal processing)Remote sensingEnvironmental sciencePoint cloudOrientation (vector space)Plot (graphics)CanopyStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceGeographyComputer visionGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wheat is one of the most widely consumed grains in the world and improving its yield, especially under severe climate conditions, is of great importance to world food security. Phenotyping methods can evaluate plants according to their different traits, such as yield and growth characteristics. Assessing the vertical stand structure of plants can provide valuable information about plant productivity and processes, mainly if this trait can be tracked throughout the plant's growth. Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) is a method capable of gathering three-dimensional data from wheat field trials and is potentially suitable for providing non-destructive, high-throughput estimations of the vertical stand structure of plants. The current study considers LiDAR and focuses on investigating the effects of sub-sampling plot data and data collection parameters on the canopy vertical profile (CVP). The CVP is a normalized, ground-referenced histogram of LiDAR point cloud data representing a plot or other spatial domain. The effects of sub-sampling of plot data, the angular field of view (FOV) of the LiDAR and LiDAR scan line orientation on the CVP were investigated. Analysis of spatial sub-sampling effects on CVP showed that at least 144000 random points (600 scan lines) or an area equivalent to three plants along the row were adequate to characterize the overall CVP of the aggregate plot. A comparison of CVPs obtained from LiDAR data for different FOV showed that CVPs varied with the angular range of the LiDAR data, with narrow ranges having a larger proportion of returns in the upper canopy and a lower proportion of returns in the lower part of the canopy. These findings will be necessary to establish minimum plot and sample sizes and compare data from studies where scan direction or field of view differ. These advancements will aid in making comparisons and inform best practices for using close-range LiDAR in phenotypic studies in crop breeding and physiology research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Plant Science→Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications→French-language works237,207→