4.5 Article

Rice biophysical parameter retrieval with optical satellite imagery: a comparative assessment of parametric and non-parametric models

Journal

GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL
Volume 37, Issue 26, Pages 13561-13578

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10106049.2022.2082546

Keywords

Paddy rice; biomass; leaf area index; parametric models; non-parametric models

Funding

  1. National Key R&D Programme of China [2017YFD0300402-3, 2016YFD0300603-5]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41871328]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compares the performance of parametric and non-parametric models in estimating rice biomass and LAI using optical satellite imagery. The findings suggest that non-parametric models outperform parametric models before heading, while the opposite is true after heading. These results provide guidance for selecting appropriate models for estimating rice biomass and LAI.
This article presents a comparison of parametric and non-parametric models in rice biomass and leaf area index (LAI) retrieval using optical satellite imagery. Four parametric models including the linear, quadratic, logarithmic and exponential models, and four non-parametric models that include RF, SVM, kNN, and GBDT were applied, respectively, on the optical satellite dataset. GBDT produced the most accurate biomass estimates (RMSE of 191.8 g/m(2)) before heading and the quadratic model produced the most accurate biomass estimates (RMSE of 364.7 g/m(2)) after heading. RF registered the most accurate LAI estimates (RMSE of 0.79 m(2)/m(2)) before heading, whereas the quadratic model recorded the most accurate LAI estimates (RMSE of 1.04 m(2)/m(2)) after heading. Non-parametric models outperformed their parametric counterparts at before heading, whereas the reverse is the case after heading. These findings provide a guide to the optimal choice of empirical models for rice biomass and LAI retrieval with optical imagery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available