ArticleFrontiers in plant science2025
Estimation of the water content of needles under stress by
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2025. 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.
- Spatiotemporal transferability of multi-temporal random forest model for mappingFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Methods: In this work, we combine vegetation indices with machine learning algorithms to estimate the water content of needles at a large scale. Multiple vegetation indices are screened via recursive feature elimination cross validation (RFECV), and then support vector regression (SVR) and back-propagation neural network (BP) models are used to predict the leaf weight content fresh (LWCF) and leaf weight content dry (LWCD) of needles over a large area. The water content ranges were then classified based on the severity of damage derived from actual sampling data. These ranges were used to categorize the estimated water content, thereby assessing the degree of tree damage. The accuracy of the method is verified by comparing the estimation results with field measurements, and the results are combined with the classifications of the leaf loss rate(LLR) to assess the severity of infestation. Results: The results indicate that: 1) When estimating LWCD and LWCF using the SVR and BP models, the SVR model demonstrated superior accuracy and stability (MAE for LWCF = 0.1477, RMSE = 0.17314; MAE for LWCD = 0.10507, RMSE = 0.14760). 2) The classification accuracies of LWCD and LWCF were notably higher in areas with light and medium damage, suggesting that these indices are effective indicators for assessing damage caused by
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.