Developing Site-Specific Prescription Maps for Sugarcane Weed Control Using High-Spatial-Resolution Images and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sugarcane is a perennial grass species mainly for sugar production and one of the significant crops in Costa Rica, where ideal growing conditions support its cultivation. Weed control is a critical aspect of sugarcane farming, traditionally managed through preventive or corrective mechanical and chemical methods. However, these methods can be time-consuming and costly. This study aimed to develop site-specific, variable rate prescription maps for weed control using remote sensing. High-spatial-resolution images (5 cm) and Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) were acquired using a Micasense Rededge-P camera and a DJI L1 sensor mounted on a drone. Precise locations of weeds were collected for calibration and validation. Normalized Difference Vegetation Index derived from multispectral images separated vegetation coverage and soil. A deep learning (DL) algorithm further classified vegetation coverage into sugarcane and weeds. The DL model performed well without overfitting. The classification accuracy was 87% compared to validation samples. The density and average heights of weed patches were extracted from the canopy height model (LiDAR). They were used to derive site-specific prescription maps for weed control. This efficient and precise alternative to traditional methods could optimize weed control, reduce herbicide usage and provide more profitable yield.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".