ArticlePloS one2023
Actual evapotranspiration by machine learning and remote sensing without the thermal spectrum.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to use machine learning algorithms to establish a model for estimating the evapotranspiration fraction (ETf) using two data input scenarios from the spectral information of the Sentinel-2 constellation, and to analyze the temporal and spatial applicability of the models to estimate the actual evapotranspiration (ETr) in agricultural crops irrigated by center pivots. The spectral bands of Sentinel 2A and 2B satellite and vegetation indices formed the first scenario. The second scenario was formed by performing the normalized ratio procedure between bands (NRPB) and joining the variables applied in the first scenario. The models were generated to predict the ETf using six regression algorithms and then compared with ETf calculated by the Simple Algorithm For Evapotranspiration Retrieving (SAFER) algorithm, was considered as the standard. The results possible to select the best model, which in both scenarios was Cubist. Subsequently, ETf was estimated only for the center pivots present in the study area and the classification of land use and cover was accessed through the MapBiomas product. Land use was necessary to enable the calculation of ETr in each scenario, in the center pivots with sugarcane and soybean crops. ETr was estimated using two ETo approaches (EToBrazil and Hargreaves-Samani). It was found that the Hargreaves-Samani equation overestimated ETr with higher errors mainly for center pivots with sugarcane, where systematic error (MBE) ranged from 0.89 to 2.02 mm d-1. The EToBrazil product, on the other hand, presented statistical errors with MBE values ranging from 0.00 to 1.26 mm d-1 for both agricultural crops. Based on the results obtained, it is observed that the ETr can be monitored spatially and temporally without the use of the thermal band, which causes the estimation of this parameter to be performed with greater temporal frequency.
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.