Synergetic inversion of leaf area index and leaf chlorophyll content using multi-spectral remote sensing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual inversions of Leaf Area Index (LAI) and Leaf Chlorophyll Content (LCC) have problems due to the mutual interference between these two vegetation parameters on remote sensing signals. We therefore explore synergetic inversion of these two parameters to improve their inversion accuracy. We selected subtropical forest plantations, where canopy reflectance data were collected using a DJI Phantom 4 Multispectral Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) every month during 2021–2022. Monthly in-situ observations of LAI and Clumping Index (CI) were also made in 23 broadleaf tree plots of dimension 12 m × 12 m. Vegetation Indices (VI) were calculated with the mean reflectance of all pixels at 0.06 m resolution within each sampling plot, and only those VIs with highest sensitivities to LAI or LCC were selected and correlated to LAI and LCC. An empirical model in the form of VI = f(LAI, LCC) was constructed for synergetic inversion of LAI and LCC. For the purpose of comparison, two models VI = f(LAI) and VI = f(LCC) were also constructed and used for the inversions of LAI and LCC, separately. The synergetic inversion model yields R2 = 0.60 and RMSE = 2.80 cm2/cm2 for LAI and R2 = 0.45 and RMSE = 32.71 μg/cm2 for LCC, whereas the separate inversion models result in R2 = 0.59 and RMSE = 2.82 cm2/cm2 for LAI and R2 = 0.35 and RMSE = 35.86 μg/cm2 for LCC. Moreover, we found that the inclusion of VIs containing a red edge band in the synergetic inversion can effectively improve the inversion accuracy. The proposed synergetic inversion method based on multiple VIs would be an effective way to separate the mutual interference between LAI and LCC and improve the accuracy of LCC inversion from remote sensing data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".