Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39043833›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Accounting for minimum data required to train a machine learning model to accurately monitor Australian dairy pastures using remote sensing.

Martin Correa-Luna, Juan Gargiulo, Peter Beale, David Deane, Jacob Leonard, Josh Hack, Zac Geldof, Chloe Wilson, Sergio Garcia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Martin Correa-LunaDairy Science Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW, 2567, Australia. martin.correa.luna@gmail.com.
Juan GargiuloNSW Department of Primary Industries, Menangle, NSW, 2568, Australia.
Peter BealeLocal Land Services, Hunter, Taree, NSW, 2430, Australia.
David DeaneLocal Land Services, Hunter, Taree, NSW, 2430, Australia.
Jacob LeonardLocal Land Services, Hunter, Taree, NSW, 2430, Australia.
Josh HackAg Farming Systems, Hunter, Taree, NSW, 2430, Australia.
Zac GeldofAgricultural Consulting, Northern Rivers, NSW, 2480, Australia.
Chloe WilsonDairy Science Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW, 2567, Australia.
Sergio GarciaDairy Science Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW, 2567, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precision in grazing management is highly dependent on accurate pasture monitoring. Typically, this is often overlooked because existing approaches are labour-intensive, need calibration, and are commonly perceived as inaccurate. Machine-learning processes harnessing big data, including remote sensing, can offer a new era of decision-support tools (DST) for pasture monitoring. Its application on-farm remains poor because of a lack of evidence about its accuracy. This study aimed at evaluating and quantifying the minimum data required to train a machine-learning satellite-based DST focusing on accurate pasture biomass prediction using this approach. Management data from 14 farms in New South Wales, Australia and measured pasture biomass throughout 12 consecutive months using a calibrated rising plate meter (RPM) as well as pasture biomass estimated using a DST based on high temporal/spatial resolution satellite images were available. Data were balanced according to farm and week of each month and randomly allocated for model evaluation (20%) and for progressive training (80%) as follows: 25% training subset (1W: week 1 in each month); 50% (2W: week 1 and 3); 75% (3W: week 1, 3, and 4); and 100% (4W: week 1 to 4). Pasture biomass estimates using the DST across all training datasets were evaluated against a calibrated rising plate meter (RPM) using mean-absolute error (MAE, kg DM/ha) among other statistics. Tukey's HSD test was used to determine the differences between MAE across all training datasets. Relative to the control (no training, MAE: 498 kg DM ha

Indexed as

BiomassDairyingMachine LearningRemote Sensing TechnologyAnimalsAustraliaCattleNew South WalesMachine learningModel trainingPasture grazing managementRemote sensing

Identifiers

PMID39043833
PMCPMC11266514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.