Predicting plant-related and leaf-related parameters of winter wheat using vegetation index: Should phenological correction be applied across growth stages?
Zhao, Y.; Meng, Y.; Feng, H.; Han, S.; Yang, G.; Li, Z.
Show abstract
Most existing plant-related and leaf-related parameters models of winter wheat vary across growing seasons, but it is an open question whether a unified statistical model can be developed to predict plant-related and leaf-related parameters using VI across multiple growing seasons, or whether the phenological correction is necessary for each parameter across multiple growing seasons. To explore this question, we measured two plant-related parameters and four leaf-related parameters over five growth stages during the 2017-2021 growing seasons. A hierarchical linear model (HLM) automatically adapts the relationship between VIs and their corresponding parameter across growing seasons and assesses the contribution of phenological variables by applying a sensitivity analysis. The estimates of VI-plant-related parameters [aboveground dry biomass (AGB) and plant nitrogen concentration (PNC)] were scattered over a given growing season, unlike the relationship between VI-leaf-related parameters [leaf dry biomass (LGB), leaf nitrogen concentration (LNC), leaf area index (LAI) and soil and plant analysis development (SPAD)]. In contrast, the AGB, PNC, LGB, LNC, LAI, and SPAD HLM models are stable and can be popularized across growing seasons, with the determination coefficient R2 ranging from 0.84 to 0.86, 0.79 to 0.87, 0.70 to 0.71, 0.68 to 0.86, 0.75 to 0.81, and 0.68 to 0.70, respectively, and the root mean square error ranging from 0.13 to 0.50 t/ha, 0.01 to 0.07%, 0.01 to 0.03 t/ha, 0.02 to 0.03%, 0.02 to 0.07, and 0.47 to 0.69, respectively. The sensitivity index of the phenological information in the AGB and PNC models was 0.56-0.78 and 0.66-0.72, respectively, whereas that in the LGB, LNC, LAI, and SPAD models was 0.01-0.06, 0.01-0.10, 0.02-0.06, and 0.00-0.01, respectively. Although phenological effects have little effect on leaf-related indicators, HLM has a strong potential for application to other crops and regions.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- An evaluation model for aboveground biomass Based on Hyperspectral Data from field and TM8 in Khorchin grassland, China 96%
- Crop loss identification at field parcel scale using satellite remote sensing and machine learning 95%
- UV reflectance in crop remote sensing: Assessing the current state of knowledge and extending research with strawberry cultivars. 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- An integrative process-based model for biomass and yield estimation of hardneck garlic (Allium sativum) 97%
- Comparative analysis of machine learning and evolutionary optimization algorithms for precision tissue culture of Cannabis sativa: Prediction and validation of in vitro shoot growth and development based on the optimization of light and carbohydrate sources 95%
- Identification of QTL hotspots affecting agronomic traits and high-throughput vegetation indices in rainfed wheat 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Wheat grain width: A clue for re-exploring visual indicators of grain weight 97%
- Accelerating leaf area measurement using a volumetric approach 96%
- Monitoring of drought stress and transpiration rate using proximal thermal and hyperspectral imaging in an indoor automated plant phenotyping platform 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Coupling Day Length Data and Genomic Prediction tools for Predicting Time-Related Traits under Complex Scenarios 94%
- YieldNet: A Convolutional Neural Network for Simultaneous Corn and Soybean Yield Prediction Based on Remote Sensing Data 94%
- Synergy between a shallow root system with a DRO1 homologue and localized P application improves rice P uptake 93%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.