ArticlePlants (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Influence of Time-Lag Effects between Winter-Wheat Canopy Temperature and Atmospheric Temperature on the Accuracy of CWSI Inversion of Photosynthetic Parameters.
Article in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
- Introduction to the Special Issue ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When calculating the CWSI, previous researchers usually used canopy temperature and atmospheric temperature at the same time. However, it takes some time for the canopy temperature (Tc) to respond to atmospheric temperature (Ta), suggesting the time-lag effects between Ta and Tc. In order to investigate time-lag effects between Ta and Tc on the accuracy of the CWSI inversion of photosynthetic parameters in winter wheat, we conducted an experiment. In this study, four moisture treatments were set up: T1 (95% of field water holding capacity), T2 (80% of field water holding capacity), T3 (65% of field water holding capacity), and T4 (50% of field water holding capacity). We quantified the time-lag parameter in winter wheat using time-lag peak-seeking, time-lag cross-correlation, time-lag mutual information, and gray time-lag correlation analysis. Based on the time-lag parameter, we modified the CWSI theoretical and empirical models and assessed the impact of time-lag effects on the accuracy of the CWSI inversion of photosynthesis parameters. Finally, we applied several machine learning algorithms to predict the daily variation in the CWSI after time-lag correction. The results show that: (1) The time-lag parameter calculated using time-lag peak-seeking, time-lag cross-correlation, time-lag mutual information, and gray time-lag correlation analysis are 44-70, 32-44, 42-58, and 76-97 min, respectively. (2) The CWSI empirical model corrected by the time-lag mutual information method has the highest correlation with photosynthetic parameters. (3) GA-SVM has the highest prediction accuracy for the CWSI empirical model corrected by the time-lag mutual information method. Considering time lag effects between Ta and Tc effectively enhanced the correlation between CWSI and photosynthetic parameters, which can provide theoretical support for thermal infrared remote sensing to diagnose crop water stress conditions.
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.