Forage Height and Above-Ground Biomass Estimation by Comparing UAV-Based Multispectral and RGB Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crop height and biomass are the two important phenotyping traits to screen forage population types at local and regional scales. This study aims to compare the performances of multispectral and RGB sensors onboard drones for quantitative retrievals of forage crop height and biomass at very high resolution. We acquired the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) multispectral images (MSIs) at 1.67 cm spatial resolution and visible data (RGB) at 0.31 cm resolution and measured the forage height and above-ground biomass over the alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) breeding trials in the Canadian Prairies. (1) For height estimation, the digital surface model (DSM) and digital terrain model (DTM) were extracted from MSI and RGB data, respectively. As the resolution of the DTM is five times less than that of the DSM, we applied an aggregation algorithm to the DSM to constrain the same spatial resolution between DSM and DTM. The difference between DSM and DTM was computed as the canopy height model (CHM), which was at 8.35 cm and 1.55 cm for MSI and RGB data, respectively. (2) For biomass estimation, the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) from MSI data and excess green (ExG) index from RGB data were analyzed and regressed in terms of ground measurements, leading to empirical models. The results indicate better performance of MSI for above-ground biomass (AGB) retrievals at 1.67 cm resolution and better performance of RGB data for canopy height retrievals at 1.55 cm. Although the retrieved height was well correlated with the ground measurements, a significant underestimation was observed. Thus, we developed a bias correction function to match the retrieval with the ground measurements. This study provides insight into the optimal selection of sensor for specific targeted vegetation growth traits in a forage crop.
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) | 0.000 | 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".