Prediction accuracy and repeatability of UAV based biomass estimation in wheat variety trials as affected by variable type, modelling strategy and sampling location.

Daniel T L Smith, Qiaomin Chen, Sean Reynolds Massey-Reed, Andries B Potgieter, Scott C Chapman
Author Information
  1. Daniel T L Smith: School of Agriculture and Food Sustainability, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia. daniel.smith3@uq.edu.au.
  2. Qiaomin Chen: School of Agriculture and Food Sustainability, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.
  3. Sean Reynolds Massey-Reed: Center for Crop Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.
  4. Andries B Potgieter: Center for Crop Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.
  5. Scott C Chapman: School of Agriculture and Food Sustainability, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia. scott.chapman@uq.edu.au.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study explores the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for estimating wheat biomass, focusing on the impact of phenotyping and analytical protocols in the context of late-stage variety selection programs. It emphasizes the importance of variable selection, model specificity, and sampling location within the experimental plot in predicting biomass, aiming to refine UAV-based estimation techniques for enhanced selection accuracy and throughput in variety testing programs.
RESULTS: The research uncovered that integrating geometric and spectral traits led to an increase in prediction accuracy, whilst a recursive feature elimination (RFE) based variable selection workflowled to slight reductions in accuracy with the benefit of increased interpretability. Models, tailored to specific experiments were more accurate than those modelling all experiments together, while models trained for broad-growth stages did not significantly increase accuracy. The comparison between a permanent and a precise region of interest (ROI) within the plot showed negligible differences in biomass prediction accuracy, indicating the robustness of the approach across different sampling locations within the plot. Significant differences in the within-season repeatability (w) of biomass predictions across different experiments highlighted the need for further investigation into the optimal timing of measurement for prediction.
CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the promising potential of UAV technology in biomass prediction for wheat at a small plot scale. It suggests that the accuracy of biomass predictions can be significantly improved through optimizing analytical and modelling protocols (i.e., variable selection, algorithm selection, stage-specific model development). Future work should focus on exploring the applicability of these findings under a wider variety of conditions and from a more diverse set of genotypes.

Keywords

References

  1. Theor Appl Genet. 2021 Jun;134(6):1845-1866 [PMID: 34076731]
  2. J Integr Plant Biol. 2012 May;54(5):312-20 [PMID: 22420640]
  3. Sensors (Basel). 2022 Jan 13;22(2): [PMID: 35062559]
  4. Sci Data. 2023 May 19;10(1):302 [PMID: 37208401]
  5. Plant Physiol. 2016 Oct;172(2):622-634 [PMID: 27482076]
  6. Plant Methods. 2019 Feb 20;15:17 [PMID: 30828356]
  7. Front Plant Sci. 2020 Jan 28;10:1749 [PMID: 32047504]
  8. Plant Phenomics. 2019 Nov 29;2019:2591849 [PMID: 33313523]
  9. Nat Food. 2022 May;3(5):318-324 [PMID: 37117579]
  10. Front Plant Sci. 2023 Apr 11;14:1138479 [PMID: 37113602]
  11. New Phytol. 2019 Sep;223(4):1714-1727 [PMID: 30937909]
  12. Theor Appl Genet. 2006 Sep;113(5):809-19 [PMID: 16896718]
  13. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2016 Jun;31:162-71 [PMID: 27161822]
  14. Plant Phenomics. 2020 May 26;2020:8329798 [PMID: 33313565]
  15. Trends Plant Sci. 2014 Jan;19(1):52-61 [PMID: 24139902]
  16. Trends Plant Sci. 2016 Feb;21(2):110-124 [PMID: 26651918]
  17. Plant Genome. 2021 Nov;14(3):e20157 [PMID: 34595846]
  18. Phenomics. 2022 Apr 4;2(3):156-183 [PMID: 36939773]
  19. Sensors (Basel). 2017 Apr 07;17(4): [PMID: 28387746]
  20. Front Plant Sci. 2018 Oct 02;9:1406 [PMID: 30333843]
  21. Plant Phenomics. 2019 May 30;2019:4820305 [PMID: 33313528]

Grants

  1. UOQ2004-013RSX/Grains Research and Development Corporation
  2. UOQ2003-011RTX/Grains Research and Development Corporation

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0biomassaccuracyselectionvarietyvariableplotpredictionwheatsamplingwithinestimationbasedexperimentsmodellingUAVstudyphenotypinganalyticalprotocolsprogramsmodellocationthroughputincreasesignificantlydifferencesacrossdifferentrepeatabilitypredictionsBACKGROUND:exploresuseUnmannedAerialVehiclesUAVsestimatingfocusingimpactcontextlate-stageemphasizesimportancespecificityexperimentalpredictingaimingrefineUAV-basedtechniquesenhancedtestingRESULTS:researchuncoveredintegratinggeometricspectraltraitsledwhilstrecursivefeatureeliminationRFEworkflowledslightreductionsbenefitincreasedinterpretabilityModelstailoredspecificaccuratetogethermodelstrainedbroad-growthstagescomparisonpermanentpreciseregioninterestROIshowednegligibleindicatingrobustnessapproachlocationsSignificantwithin-seasonwhighlightedneedinvestigationoptimaltimingmeasurementCONCLUSIONS:highlightspromisingpotentialtechnologysmallscalesuggestscanimprovedoptimizingiealgorithmstage-specificdevelopmentFutureworkfocusexploringapplicabilityfindingswiderconditionsdiversesetgenotypesPredictiontrialsaffectedtypestrategyField-basedHighmonitoringWheat

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.