ArticleScientific reports2024
Accounting for minimum data required to train a machine learning model to accurately monitor Australian dairy pastures using remote sensing.
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.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.