ArticleFrontiers in plant science2026
Cotton boll extraction and single-boll weight estimation based on UAV multispectral imagery.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-boll weight (SBW) is difficult to estimate after defoliant application because canopy spectra include numerous mixed pixels from lint, soil, and senescent leaves, leading to strong background interference. Here we propose a UAV multispectral workflow that combines object-based boll extraction, spectral feature selection, and machine-learning regression to improve SBW mapping. Data were collected from a two-year drip-irrigated cotton experiment in Xinjiang, China involving four varieties evaluated under five planting densities treatments. Boll extraction was treated as a supervised object-based classification problem, and maximum likelihood, mahalanobis distance, and parallelepiped classifiers were compared. Fifteen vegetation indices were computed from the extracted boll pixels; informative features were identified using Pearson correlation and SHapley Additive exPlanations importance ranking. SBW was then estimated with ridge regression, random forest regression, and neural network regression using an independent validation dataset. Maximum likelihood consistently achieved overall accuracy above 97% with Kappa values above 0.93, outperforming the other classifiers. Indices derived from the red, red-edge, and near-infrared bands, particularly those designed to reduce soil background effects, showed the strongest relationships with SBW and ranked highest in SHAP. The best-performing model, which integrated maximum likelihood-based boll extraction with neural network regression, achieved a coefficient of determination of 0.80 and a root mean square error of 0.31 g on the validation set. Relative errors remained below 15% across different years, varieties, and planting densities. This workflow reduces background interference and enables transferable SBW spatial estimation for breeding evaluation and density and harvest management.
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.