4.7 Article

Estimation of crop variables using bistatic scatterometer data and artificial neural network trained by empirical models

期刊

COMPUTERS AND ELECTRONICS IN AGRICULTURE
卷 123, 期 -, 页码 64-73

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2016.02.004

关键词

Kidney bean crop; Bistatic scatterometer; Linear regression analysis; Gaussian function; Artificial neural network; Soil moisture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multi-temporal and multi-angular bistatic scatterometer measurements were carried out on two similar specially prepared kidney bean crop beds at two frequencies (6 GHz and 10 GHz) for like polarizations (HH- and VV-). The present study describes the estimation of crop variables and crop covered soil moisture of kidney bean crop using artificial neural network (ANN). The suitable configurations of bistatic scatterometer system were found at 10,GHz, 50 incidence angle for the estimation of kidney bean crop variables and 6 GHz, 20 incidence angle for the estimation of crop covered soil moisture at VV-polarization by linear regression analysis. Two artificial neural network models namely ANN-I and ANN-II were developed for the estimation of crop variables and crop covered soil moisture of kidney bean crop, respectively. The observed data set (scattering coefficients, crop variables and crop covered soil moisture) of first crop bed of kidney bean was used as a reference data set for developing empirical models. The training of the ANN-I model was done using 95 data set generated through empirical models consistent with the age of the kidney bean crop. The ANN-II was trained using the scattering coefficients and crop covered soil moisture of reference crop bed. The trained ANN-I and ANN-II models were tested by the observed data set of second kidney bean crop bed. The estimated values by ANN-I and ANN-II were found very close to the observed values of the crop variables and crop covered soil moisture of second kidney bean crop bed. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据