2016
DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2016.1212423
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A data fusion and spatial data analysis approach for the estimation of wheat grain nitrogen uptake from satellite data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
11
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A composite topsoil sample was collected for the LUCAS survey within a circular area of 2 m radius, while the ground sampling distance (GSD) for S2 is 10 m for the visible band, and 20 m in the NIR and SWIR bands. The discrepancy between soil sampling area and GSD is even more marked for L8: All the L8 bands have a resolution of 30 m. This incongruity could lead to not reliable soil estimation models if the measured values do not represent the actual situation within the pixel area [27,[44][45]; this issue may become more pronounced according to the magnitude of the geometric error and if the investigated soil property has a large short-range spatial variability. The Pearson's correlation coefficient between reflectance measured on LUCAS soil samples in the laboratory and satellite data (Figure 3) highlighted how the S2 SBSIs are closer to lab spectra than L8 SBSIs, probably due to the lower spatial resolution of the NASA sensor.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A composite topsoil sample was collected for the LUCAS survey within a circular area of 2 m radius, while the ground sampling distance (GSD) for S2 is 10 m for the visible band, and 20 m in the NIR and SWIR bands. The discrepancy between soil sampling area and GSD is even more marked for L8: All the L8 bands have a resolution of 30 m. This incongruity could lead to not reliable soil estimation models if the measured values do not represent the actual situation within the pixel area [27,[44][45]; this issue may become more pronounced according to the magnitude of the geometric error and if the investigated soil property has a large short-range spatial variability. The Pearson's correlation coefficient between reflectance measured on LUCAS soil samples in the laboratory and satellite data (Figure 3) highlighted how the S2 SBSIs are closer to lab spectra than L8 SBSIs, probably due to the lower spatial resolution of the NASA sensor.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, changing the support (the geometrical size),is unavoidablein order to enable the comparison of two variables with different supports. Nevertheless, if the ground sampling area is much smaller than the pixel size of the remote image there is a risk of weakening the link between target soil property and spectral data [38]. Although block kriging allowed to properly link SOC values and EnMAP data,this resulted in smoothing the SOC variability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, [36] employed a filter feature-selection algorithm based on minimizing a tight bound on the Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) dimension [37]. Ranking-based methods are one of the most common filter-based feature selection methods; these methods estimate the importance of each spectral band using such metrics as the variance inflation factor (VIF) [38] in order to select the top-ranked bands. We will use the idea of calculating the VIF value to measure collinearity, but the spectral bands will not be ranked based on this simple measure alone.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the literature, the recommended values of θ are between 5 and 10 [57,58], so we test different values of θ ∈ [5,12] to observe how the classification performance is affected by this threshold and to choose the best θ for a given classification task. Some methods, such as that proposed by Castaldi et al [38], use the VIF metric to perform a stepwise selection process where the bands that show a VIF value greater than a threshold θ (i.e., bands that show a high risk of multicollinearity) are removed from the selection. Our approach is novel and distinct in that we use the VIF metric as part of a preselection step, assessing the collinearity degree between each band and its local neighbors iteratively in order to find independent salient bands that are suitable cluster centers.…”
Section: Interband Redundancy Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%