ArticlePloS one2024
Spectral indices with different spatial resolutions in recognizing soybean phenology.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present research was to evaluate the efficiency of different vegetation indices (VI) obtained from satellites with varying spatial resolutions in discriminating the phenological stages of soybean crops. The experiment was carried out in a soybean cultivation area irrigated by central pivot, in Balsas, MA, Brazil, where weekly assessments of phenology and leaf area index were carried out. Throughout the crop cycle, spectral data from the study area were collected from sensors, onboard the Sentinel-2 and Amazônia-1 satellites. The images obtained were processed to obtain the VI based on NIR (NDVI, NDWI and SAVI) and RGB (VARI, IV GREEN and GLI), for the different phenological stages of the crop. The efficiency in identifying phenological stages by VI was determined through discriminant analysis and the Algorithm Neural Network-ANN, where the best classifications presented an Apparent Error Rate (APER) equal to zero. The APER for the discriminant analysis varied between 53.4% and 70.4% while, for the ANN, it was between 47.4% and 73.9%, making it not possible to identify which of the two analysis techniques is more appropriate. The study results demonstrated that the difference in sensors spatial resolution is not a determining factor in the correct identification of soybean phenological stages. Although no VI, obtained from the Amazônia-1 and Sentinel-2 sensor systems, was 100% effective in identifying all phenological stages, specific indices can be used to identify some key phenological stages of soybean crops, such as: flowering (R1 and R2); pod development (R4); grain development (R5.1); and plant physiological maturity (R8). Therefore, VI obtained from orbital sensors are effective in identifying soybean phenological stages quickly and cheaply.
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.