Applying Different Vegetation Indices for Gross Primary Productivity Estimation in Soybean and Maize Based on a Modified Light-Use Efficiency Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crop gross primary productivity (GPP) represents a fundamental variable for the investigation of carbon exchange dynamics among elements within agroecosystems. The usage of light use efficiency (LUE) models based on satellite data to estimate regional field GPP is regarded as an efficacious approach. The accuracy of conventional LUE models in estimating GPP is influenced by soil temperature dynamics and subsurface moisture conditions, both of which are challenging to fully characterize. Consequently, there is a necessity to enhance the LUE for soil temperature and soil moisture. Vegetation indices have been shown to effectively capture canopy dynamics and improve the accuracy of GPP estimation, with different indices yielding varying outcomes in LUE-based models. Therefore, in this study, we proposed a modified light use efficiency (M-LUE) model and quantified the influence of soil temperature on GPP estimation. The model was evaluated in three cropland sites, each characterized by distinct crop rotation systems and irrigation strategies. In addition, we tested the performances of nine vegetation indices in estimating the GPP. The results showed that M-LUE was accurate in GPP estimation with R2 of 0.92±0.04 in maize and 0.81±0.05 in soybean. Compared to EC-LUE, M-LUE improved prediction accuracy in GPP estimation, especially for soybeans. For irrigated soybeans, the R2 of M-LUE with EVI improved by 24.4%, while for rainfed soybeans, the R2 of M-LUE with SR improved by 10.5%. In addition, the performance of the model is different between the irrigated and rainfed crops. It performed better in irrigated maize and rainfed soybean. The findings of this study demonstrate the considerable potential of the M-LUE model in the estimation of GPP for soybeans and maize.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".