MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391809506 · doi:10.3390/rs16040683

Corn Grain Yield Prediction Using UAV-Based High Spatiotemporal Resolution Imagery, Machine Learning, and Spatial Cross-Validation

2024· article· en· W4391809506 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick Killeen, Iluju Kiringa, Tet Yeap, Paula Branco

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverfittingRandom forestComputer scienceImage resolutionArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceGeographyArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food demand is expected to rise significantly by 2050 due to the increase in population; additionally, receding water levels, climate change, and a decrease in the amount of available arable land will threaten food production. To address these challenges and increase food security, input cost reductions and yield optimization can be accomplished using yield precision maps created by machine learning models; however, without considering the spatial structure of the data, the precision map’s accuracy evaluation assessment risks being over-optimistic, which may encourage poor decision making that can lead to negative economic impacts (e.g., lowered crop yields). In fact, most machine learning research involving spatial data, including the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery-based yield prediction literature, ignore spatial structure and likely obtain over-optimistic results. The present work is a UAV imagery-based corn yield prediction study that analyzed the effects of image spatial and spectral resolution, image acquisition date, and model evaluation scheme on model performance. We used various spatial generalization evaluation methods, including spatial cross-validation (CV), to (a) identify over-optimistic models that overfit to the spatial structure found inside datasets and (b) estimate true model generalization performance. We compared and ranked the prediction power of 55 vegetation indices (VIs) and five spectral bands over a growing season. We gathered yield data and UAV-based multispectral (MS) and red-green-blue (RGB) imagery from a Canadian smart farm and trained random forest (RF) and linear regression (LR) models using 10-fold CV and spatial CV approaches. We found that imagery from the middle of the growing season produced the best results. RF and LR generally performed best with high and low spatial resolution data, respectively. MS imagery led to generally better performance than RGB imagery. Some of the best-performing VIs were simple ratio index(near-infrared and red-edge), normalized difference red-edge index, and normalized green index. We found that 10-fold CV coupled with spatial CV could be used to identify over-optimistic yield prediction models. When using high spatial resolution MS imagery, RF and LR obtained 0.81 and 0.56 correlation coefficient (CC), respectively, when using 10-fold CV, and obtained 0.39 and 0.41, respectively, when using a k-means-based spatial CV approach. Furthermore, when using only location features, RF and LR obtained an average CC of 1.00 and 0.49, respectively. This suggested that LR had better spatial generalizability than RF, and that RF was likely being over-optimistic and was overfitting to the spatial structure of the 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 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations60
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207