ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Data-Driven Methods for the Estimation of Leaf Water and Dry Matter Content: Performances, Potential and Limitations.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Full-Spectrum Hyperspectral Modeling of Leaf Dry Matter Content Using a Stacked Ensemble Framework.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Leaf equivalent water thickness (EWT) and dry matter content (expressed as leaf mass per area (LMA)) are two critical traits for vegetation function monitoring, crop yield estimation, and precise agriculture management. Data-driven methods are widely used for remote sensing of leaf EWT and LMA because of their simplicity, satisfactory accuracy, and computation efficiency, such as the vegetation indices (VI)-based and machine learning (ML)-based methods. However, most of the data-driven methods are utilized at the canopy level, comparison of the performances of the data-driven methods at the leaf level has not been well documented. Moreover, the ML-based data-driven methods generally adopt leaf optical properties directly as their inputs, which may subsequently decrease their ability in remote sensing of leaf biochemical constituents. Performances of the ML-based methods cooperating with VI are rarely evaluated. Using the independent LOPEX and ANGERS datasets, we compared the performances of three data-driven methods: VI-based, ML-reflectance-based, and ML-VI-based methods, for the estimation of leaf EWT and LMA. Three sampling strategies were also utilized for evaluation of the generalization of these data-driven methods. Our results evidenced that ML-VI-based methods were the most accurate among these data-driven methods. Compared to the ML-reflectance-based and VI-based methods, the ML-VI-based model with support vector regression overall reduced errors by 5.7% (41.5%) and 1.8% (12.4%) for the estimation of leaf EWT (LMA), respectively. The ML-VI-based model inherits advantages of vegetation indices and ML techniques, which made it sensitive to changes of leaf biochemical constituents and capable of solving nonlinear tasks. It is thus recommended for the estimation of EWT and LMA at the leaf level. Moreover, its performance can further be enhanced by improving its generalization ability, such as adopting techniques on the selection of better wavelengths and definition of new vegetation indices. These results thus provided a prior knowledge of the data-driven methods and can be helpful for future studies on the remote sensing of leaf biochemical constituents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.