Submitted:
19 March 2025
Posted:
20 March 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Description of the Study Area
2.2. Field Experiment Design
2.3. UAV-Based Multispectral Data Acquisitions
2.4. Ground Truthing and Phenotyping
- 2)
- Leaf Area Index (LAI)
- 3)
- Chlorophyll Content (SPAD)
- 4)
- Canopy Leaf Moisture Content (CLMC)
2.5. Data Preprocessing and Vegetation indices
2.6. Model Construction and Evaluation Metrics
2.7. Cross-Location and Cross-Year Experimental Scheme
- 1)
- Single-Location Modeling
- 2)
- Cross-Location Extrapolation
- 3)
- Cross-Year Extrapolation
- 4)
- Multi-Location and Multi-Year Fusion Modeling
3. Results
3.1. Consistency and Calibration Effect of Multispectral Data
3.2. Importance of Spectral Features and Their Effects on Phenotypic Parameters
3.3. Model Construction and Evaluation under Different Datasets
3.3.1. Modeling Results for LF Single-Region Data in 2023
3.3.2. Modeling Results for Taigu Single-Region Data in 2023
3.3.3. Modeling Results for Yuci Single-Region Data in 2024
3.3.4. Model Construction and Evaluation under Integrated Dataset
3.4. Cross-Regional and Cross-Year Validation and Evaluation of the Model
3.4.1. Cross-Regional Model Validation and Evaluation in the Same Year
3.4.2. Cross-Year Model Validation and Evaluation for the Following Year
3.4.3. Model Validation and Evaluation Using Combined Year and Regional Datasets
4. Discussion
4.1. Cross-Regional Extrapolation within the Same Year
4.2. Cross-Year Extrapolation Stability and Influencing Factors
4.3. Advantages of Multi-Source Data Fusion for Model Transferability
4.4. Current Methodological Limitations and Potential Improvements
4.5. Potential for Extension to Other Crops and Climatic Conditions
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| LR | Linear Regression |
| RF | Random Forest |
| GB | Gradient Boosting |
| MLP | Multilayer perceptron neural networks |
| LAI | Leaf areas index |
| CLMC | Canopy Leaf moisture content |
| X1 | Green band reflectance |
| X2 | Red band reflectance |
| X3 | Red-edge band reflectance |
| X4 | Near-infrared band reflectance |
| X5 | NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) |
| X6 | RDVI (Renormalized Difference Vegetation Index) |
| X7 | NLI (Non-linear Vegetation Index) |
| X8 | GNDVI (Green Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) |
| X9 | RVI (Ratio Vegetation Index) |
| X10 | SAVI (Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index) |
| X11 | NDGI (Normalized Difference Greenness Index) |
| X12 | WDRVI (Wide Dynamic Range Vegetation Index) |
| X13 | TVI (Triangular Vegetation Index) |
| X14 | DVI (Difference Vegetation Index) |
| X15 | OSAVI (Optimized Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index) |
| Y1 | CLMC (Canopy Leaf Moisture Content) |
| Y2 | SPAD (Chlorophyll Content) |
References
- Nadeem, F.; Ahmad, Z.; Ul Hassan, M.; et al. Adaptation of foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) to abiotic stresses: a special perspective of responses to nitrogen and phosphate limitations[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science 2020, 11, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baduni, P.; Maikhuri, R.K.; Bhatt, G.C.; et al. Contribution of millets in food and nutritional security to human being: Current status and future perspectives[J]. Natural Resources Conservation and Research 2024, 7, 5479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raut, D.; Sudeepthi, B.; Gawande, K.N.; et al. Millet’s role as a climate resilient staple for future food security: A review[J]. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change 2023, 13, 4542–4552. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, R.P.; Qidwai, S.; Singh, O.; et al. Millets for food and nutritional security in the context of climate resilient agriculture: A review[J]. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science 2022, 34, 939–953. [Google Scholar]
- Pavithra, K.S.; Senthil, A.; Babu Rajendra Prasad, V.; et al. Variations in photosynthesis associated traits and grain yield of minor millets[J]. Plant Physiology Reports 2020, 25, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddy, S. Association of photosynthesis of flag leaves with grain yield in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L. ) R. Br.): Flag leaves association with yield in pearl millet[J]. Annals of Arid Zone 2023, 62, 91–96. [Google Scholar]
- Rodríguez, J.P.; Rahman, H.; Thushar, S.; et al. Healthy and resilient cereals and pseudo-cereals for marginal agriculture: Molecular advances for improving nutrient bioavailability[J]. Frontiers in Genetics 2020, 11, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serba, D.D.; Yadav, R.S.; Varshney, R.K.; et al. Genomic designing of pearl millet: A resilient crop for arid and semi-arid environments[J]. Genomic Designing of Climate-Smart Cereal Crops 2020, 221–286. [Google Scholar]
- Tiwari, H.; Naresh, R.K.; Kumar, L.; et al. Millets for food and nutritional security for small and marginal farmers of North West India in the context of climate change: A review[J]. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science 2022, 34, 1694–1705. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, S.; Sun, X.; Wu, F.; et al. Lidar sheds new light on plant phenomics for plant breeding and management: Recent advances and future prospects[J]. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 2021, 171, 202–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Quan, C.; Song, Z.; et al. High-throughput plant phenotyping platform (HT3P) as a novel tool for estimating agronomic traits from the lab to the field[J]. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 2021, 8, 623705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wen, T.; Li, J.H.; Wang, Q.; et al. Thermal imaging: The digital eye facilitates high-throughput phenotyping traits of plant growth and stress responses[J]. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 165626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reynolds, M.; Chapman, S.; Crespo-Herrera, L.; et al. Breeder friendly phenotyping[J]. Plant Science 2020, 295, 110396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yu, T.; Zhou, J.; Fan, J.; et al. Potato leaf area index estimation using multi-sensor unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery and machine learning[J]. Remote Sensing 2023, 15, 4108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, X.; Liu, Y.; Yu, R.; et al. A comparison of UAV RGB and multispectral imaging in phenotyping for stay green of wheat population[J]. Remote Sensing 2021, 13, 5173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shu, M.; Fei, S.; Zhang, B.; et al. Application of UAV multisensor data and ensemble approach for high-throughput estimation of maize phenotyping traits[J]. Plant Phenomics 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fei, S.; Hassan, M.A.; Xiao, Y.; et al. UAV-based multi-sensor data fusion and machine learning algorithm for yield prediction in wheat[J]. Precision Agriculture 2023, 24, 187–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Q.; Su, Y.; Hu, T.; et al. Lidar boosts 3D ecological observations and modelings: A review and perspective[J]. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine 2020, 9, 232–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Chen, Z.; Cheng, Q.; et al. UAV-based hyperspectral and ensemble machine learning for predicting yield in winter wheat[J]. Agronomy 2022, 12, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osco, L.P.; Junior, J.M.; Ramos, A.P.M.; et al. Leaf nitrogen concentration and plant height prediction for maize using UAV-based multispectral imagery and machine learning techniques[J]. Remote Sensing 2020, 12, 3237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, J.; Zhou, J.; Wang, B.; et al. Estimation of maize yield and flowering time using multi-temporal UAV-based hyperspectral data[J]. Remote Sensing 2022, 14, 3052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamrouni, Y.; Paillassa, E.; Chéret, V.; et al. From local to global: A transfer learning-based approach for mapping poplar plantations at national scale using Sentinel-2[J]. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 2021, 171, 76–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nex, F.; Armenakis, C.; Cramer, M.; et al. UAV in the advent of the twenties: Where we stand and what is next[J]. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 2022, 184, 215–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inoue, Y. Satellite-and drone-based remote sensing of crops and soils for smart farming–a review[J]. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 2020, 66, 798–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azzari, G.; Jain, M.; Lobell, D.B. Towards fine resolution global maps of crop yields: Testing multiple methods and satellites in three countries[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment 2017, 202, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, P.; Srivastava, P.K.; Verrelst, J.; et al. High resolution retrieval of leaf chlorophyll content over Himalayan pine forest using Visible/IR sensors mounted on UAV and radiative transfer model[J]. Ecological Informatics 2023, 75, 102099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, J.; Han, S.; Verrelst, J.; et al. Deciphering maize vertical leaf area profiles by fusing spectral imagery data and a bell-shaped function[J]. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 2023, 120, 103355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Z.; Meng, J.; Shang, J.; et al. Generating time-series LAI estimates of maize using combined methods based on multispectral UAV observations and WOFOST model[J]. Sensors 2020, 20, 6006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Feng, L.; Zhang, Z.; et al. An unsupervised domain adaptation deep learning method for spatial and temporal transferable crop type mapping using Sentinel-2 imagery[J]. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 2023, 199, 102–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, Z. Self-supervised pre-training for large-scale crop mapping using Sentinel-2 time series[J]. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 2024, 207, 312–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Q.; Ding, F.; Xu, H.; et al. Quantifying corn LAI using machine learning and UAV multispectral imaging[J]. Precision Agriculture 2024, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, G.; Li, Y.; Yuan, S.; et al. Enhancing direct-seeded rice yield prediction using UAV-derived features acquired during the reproductive phase[J]. Precision Agriculture 2024, 25, 1014–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karthikeyan, L.; Chawla, I.; Mishra, A.K. A review of remote sensing applications in agriculture for food security: Crop growth and yield, irrigation, and crop losses[J]. Journal of Hydrology 2020, 586, 124905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, P.B.; Chapman, W.E.; Altinok, A.; et al. Training machine learning models on climate model output yields skillful interpretable seasonal precipitation forecasts[J]. Communications Earth & Environment 2021, 2, 159. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, Y.; Ozdogan, M.; Zhu, X.; et al. Comparative assessment of environmental variables and machine learning algorithms for maize yield prediction in the US Midwest[J]. Environmental Research Letters 2020, 15, 064005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, P.; Wang, B.; Li Liu, D.; et al. Dynamic wheat yield forecasts are improved by a hybrid approach using a biophysical model and machine learning technique[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 2020, 285, 107922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiss, M.; Jacob, F.; Duveiller, G. Remote sensing for agricultural applications: A meta-review[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment 2020, 236, 111402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.; Tang, L.; Hupy, J.P.; et al. A commentary review on the use of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) in the era of popular remote sensing[J]. Journal of Forestry Research 2021, 32, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.M. Evaluation of vegetation indices and a modified simple ratio for boreal applications[J]. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 1996, 22, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Sun, Q.; Huang, J.; et al. Estimation of potato above ground biomass based on UAV multispectral images[J]. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis 2021, 41, 2549–2555. [Google Scholar]
- Gitelson, A.A.; Kaufman, Y.J.; Merzlyak, M.N. Use of a green channel in remote sensing of global vegetation from EOS-MODIS[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment 1996, 58, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearson, R.L.; Miller, L.D. Remote mapping of standing crop biomass for estimation of the productivity of the shortgrass prairie[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment 1972, VIII, 1355. [Google Scholar]
- Huete, A. A soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI)[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment 1988, 25, 295–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, N.M.; Rastoskuev, V.V.; Sato, Y.; et al. Assessment of hydrosaline land degradation by using a simple approach of remote sensing indicators[J]. Agricultural Water Management 2005, 77, 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gitelson, A.A. Wide dynamic range vegetation index for remote quantification of biophysical characteristics of vegetation[J]. Journal of Plant Physiology 2004, 161, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Zhao, G.; Lang, K.; et al. Integrated Satellite, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and Ground Inversion of the SPAD of Winter Wheat in the Reviving Stage[J]. Sensors 2019, 19, 1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Zhang, M.; Zeng, H.; et al. Challenges and opportunities in remote sensing-based crop monitoring: A review[J]. National Science Review 2023, 10, nwac290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, X.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Schmidhalter, U.; et al. High-throughput estimation of crop traits: A review of ground and aerial phenotyping platforms[J]. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine 2020, 9, 200–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Zhang, R.; Ma, Q.; et al. A feature selection and multi-model fusion-based approach of predicting air quality[J]. ISA Transactions 2020, 100, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alqadhi, S.; Mallick, J.; Balha, A.; et al. Spatial and decadal prediction of land use/land cover using multi-layer perceptron-neural network (MLP-NN) algorithm for a semi-arid region of Asir, Saudi Arabia[J]. Earth Science Informatics 2021, 14, 1547–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, Y.; Qiu, X.; Guo, T.; Wang, Y.; Cheng, T.; Zhu, Y.; et al. An automatic method for counting wheat tiller number in the field with terrestrial LiDAR[J]. Plant Methods 2020, 16, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Centorame, L.; Gasperini, T.; Ilari, A.; Del Gatto, A.; Foppa Pedretti, E. An overview of machine learning applications on plant phenotyping, with a focus on sunflower[J]. Agronomy 2024, 14, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.; Zhou, J.; Ye, H.; Ali, M.L.; Chen, P.; Nguyen, H.T. Yield estimation of soybean breeding lines under drought stress using unmanned aerial vehicle-based imagery and convolutional neural network[J]. Biosystems Engineering 2021, 204, 90–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pantazi, X.E.; Moshou, D.; Alexandridis, T.; Whetton, R.L.; Mouazen, A.M. Wheat yield prediction using machine learning and advanced sensing techniques[J]. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2016, 121, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]









| Index Number | Vegetation Index | Calculation Formula | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) | [38] | |
| 2 | Renormalized Difference Vegetation Index (RDVI) | [39] | |
| 3 | Nonlinear Vegetation Index (NLI) | [40] | |
| 4 | Green Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (GNDVI) | [41] | |
| 5 | Ratio Vegetation Index (RVI) | [42] | |
| 6 | Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI) | [43] | |
| 7 | Normalized Difference Green Index (NDGI) | [44] | |
| 8 | Wide Dynamic Range Vegetation Index (WDRVI) | [45] | |
| 9 | Triangular Vegetation Index (TVI) | [46] | |
| 10 | Difference Vegetation Index (DVI) | [46] | |
| 11 | Optimized Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index (OSAVI) | [46] |
| Index of millet canopy | Model ranking | Optimal prediction model | Coefficient of determination | Mean relative error(%) | Maximum relative error | Root mean square error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p | 1 | RF | 0.852(0.607) | 3.981(7.194) | 11.781(12.775) | 0.038(0.049) |
| 2 | Ridge | 0.616(0.491) | 9.033(6.157) | 19.372(15.269) | 0.069(0.051) | |
| SPAD | 1 | RF | 0.946(0.912) | 4.514(11.746) | 42.981(49.688) | 5.521(12.432) |
| 2 | GB | 0.932(0.902) | 1.121(12.874) | 7.782(27.891) | 14.445(12.541) | |
| Leaf area index | 1 | Ridge | 0.758(0.864) | 11.258(8.388) | 29.931(25.440) | 0.459(0.291) |
| 2 | GB | 0.948(0.806) | 2.113(10.581) | 6.331(23.852) | 0.008(0.347) |
| Index of millet canopy | Model ranking | Optimal prediction model | Coefficient of determination | Mean relative error(%) | Maximum relative error | Root mean square error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canopy leaf moisture content | 1 | GB | 0.944(0.512) | 2.912(9.931) | 5.512 (22.612) | 0.026(0.082) |
| 2 | Ridge | 0.569(0.482) | 8.122(9.621) | 31.342(21.234) | 0.073(0.092) | |
| SPAD | 1 | GB | 0.981(0.866) | 0.691(9.810) | 1.723(34.711) | 0.530(21.520) |
| 2 | Lasso | 0.772(0.783) | 13.442(13.621) | 75.123(36.12) | 23.872(27.384) | |
| Leaf area index | 1 | MLP | 0.921(0.785) | 7.400(14.432) | 57.901(41.651) | 0.324(0.596) |
| 2 | LR | 0.907(0.779) | 8.912(15.900) | 40.611(34.715) | 0.352(0.604) |
| Index of millet canopy | Model ranking | Optimal prediction model | Coefficient of determination | Mean relative error(%) | Maximum relative error | Root mean square error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canopy leaf moisture content | 1 | RF | 0.982(0.513) | 1.020(3.311) | 3.610(10.512) | 0.011(0.041) |
| 2 | GB | 0.998(0.458) | 0.005(3.912) | 0.010(11.412) | 0.007(0.043) | |
| SPAD | 1 | GB | 0.983(0.956) | 0.310(1.210) | 1.031(4.621) | 0.115(3.612) |
| 2 | RF | 0.957(0.923) | 1.912(1.812) | 10.112(4.445) | 6.720(4.860) | |
| Leaf area index | 1 | GB | 0.998(0.972) | 0.121(4.234) | 0.832(13.956) | 0.001(0.157 |
| 2 | RF | 0.989(0.952) | 2.221(5.256) | 14.934(13.456) | 0.149((0.179) |
| Index of millet canopy | Integrated Dataset Approach | Model ranking | Optimal prediction model | Coefficient of determination | Mean relative error(%) | Maximum relative error | Root mean square error |
| Canopy leaf moisture content | A + B | 1 | GB | 0.997(0.768) | 0.700(6.010) | 2.512(15.610) | 0.006(0.048) |
| 2 | RF | 0.935(0.753) | 2.801(6.200) | 11.010(22.910) | 0.027(0.049) | ||
| A + C | 1 | GB | 0.994(0.853) | 0.801(3.904) | 3.112(18.851) | 0.007(0.034) | |
| 2 | RF | 0.958(0.849) | 2.011(3.924) | 12.432(21.141) | 0.020(0.035) | ||
| B + C | 1 | RF | 0.960(0.686) | 1.801(6.112) | 10.912(19.531) | 0.017(0.048) | |
| 2 | GB | 0.999(0.646) | 0.311(6.231) | 1.341(17.243) | 0.002(0.051) | ||
| A + B+ C | 1 | GB | 0.987(0.833) | 1.291(4.660) | 4.871(22.777) | 0.011(0.041) | |
| 2 | RF | 0.961(0.780) | 2.031(5.404) | 10.823(21.849) | 0.019(0.048) | ||
| SPAD | A + B | 1 | RF | 0.9689(0.924) | 4.710(7.010) | 56.711(19.800) | 11.061(14.751) |
| 2 | GB | 0.998(0.909) | 1.001(8.003) | 12.012(21.601) | 1.530(16.123) | ||
| A + C | 1 | RF | 0.978(0.956) | 2.901(3.3331) | 29.631(14.411) | 6.687(9.039) | |
| 2 | GB | 0.997(0.932) | 1.024(4.851) | 7.451(22.945) | 2.285(11.160) | ||
| B + C | 1 | GB | 0.999(0.967) | 1.012(7.214) | 12.735(24.171) | 1.801(11.094) | |
| 2 | RF | 0.978(0.930) | 4.134(9.101) | 83.127(37.219) | 8.377(16.104) | ||
| A +B + C | 1 | RF | 0.987(0.959) | 2.932(5.987) | 72.948(8.627) | 6.083(11.474) | |
| 2 | GB | 0.996(0.956) | 1.686(6.366) | 17.493(8.251) | 3.366(11.084) | ||
| Leaf area index | A + B | 1 | GB | 0.998(0.796) | 1.120(9.902) | 4.512(31.801) | 0.045(0.474) |
| 2 | RF | 0.961(0.787) | 4.702(9.311) | 22.204(29.511) | 0.214(0.484) | ||
| A + C | 1 | LR | 0.897(0.886) | 11.631(11.721) | 49.421(51.051) | 0.432(0.415) | |
| 2 | Ridge | 0.812(0.874) | 18.121(15.042) | 88.621(51.143) | 0.584(0.436) | ||
| B + C | 1 | MLP | 0.915(0.826) | 8.503(10.442) | 40.134(41.349) | 0.367(0.495) | |
| 2 | GB | 0.999(0.815) | 0.801(8.038) | 3.310(29.309) | 0.033(0.510) | ||
| A + B+ C | 1 | Ridge | 0.813(0.659) | 17.645(15.841) | 69.058(50.854) | 0.551(0.597) | |
| 2 | RF | 0.897(0.654) | 2.798(10.552) | 13.027(36.54) | 0.141(0.602) |
| Index of millet canopy | Construct Model Dataset | Evaluate Model Dataset |
Coefficient of determination | Mean relative error(%) | Maximum relative error | Root mean square error |
| Canopy leaf moisture content | 2023 LF | 2023 PT | 0.502 | 13.55 | 28.052 | 0.118 |
| 2023 PT | 2023 LF | 0.435 | 6.660 | 43.274 | 0.059 | |
| SPAD | 2023 LF | 2023 PT | 0.597 | 14.960 | 114.881 | 36.956 |
| 2023 PT | 2023 LF | 0.831 | 21.042 | 103.190 | 24.055 | |
| Leaf area index | 2023 LF | 2023 PT | 0.577 | 18.764 | 66.133 | 0.770 |
| 2023 PT | 2020 LF | 0.584 | 15.573 | 57.102 | 0.590 |
| Index of millet canopy | Model Construction Dataset | Model Evaluation Dataset | Coefficient of determination | Mean relative error(%) | Maximum relative error | Root mean square error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canopy leaf moisture content | 2023 LF | 2024 LF | 0.464 | 8.059 | 20.693 | 0.074 |
| 2023 LF+2023 PT | 2024 LF | 0.603 | 5.165 | 19.301 | 0.054 | |
| 2023 LF+2024 LF | 2024 LF | 0.547 | 6.187 | 18.759 | 0.046 | |
| SPAD | 2023 LF | 2024 LF | 0.514 | 4.214 | 24.721 | 0.054 |
| 2023 LF+2023 PT | 2024 LF | 0.658 | 5.814 | 59.724 | 18.719 | |
| 2023 LF+2024 LF | 2024 LF | 0.971 | 1.021 | 10.591 | 5.124 | |
| Leaf area index | 2023 LF | 2024 LF | 0.583 | 18.791 | 59.831 | 0.924 |
| 2023 LF+2023 PT | 2024 LF | 0.849 | 9.797 | 60.578 | 0.550 | |
| 2023 LF+2024 LF | 2024 LF | 0.937 | 6.431 | 26.341 | 0.344 |
| Index of millet canopy | Coefficient of determination | Mean relative error(%) | Maximum relative error | Root mean square error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canopy leaf moisture content | 0.983 | 0.924 | 4.169 | 0.014 |
| SPAD | 0.947 | 1.854 | 16.864 | 7.321 |
| Leaf area index | 0.829 | 20.984 | 69.062 | 0.589 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).