| Literature DB >> 35515497 |
Xiao Han1, Fangbiao Liu1, Xiaoliang He2, Fenglou Ling1.
Abstract
Food is the paramount necessity of the people. With the progress of society and the improvement of social welfare system, the living standards of people all over the world are constantly improving. The development of medical industry improves people's health level constantly, and the world population is constantly climbing to a new peak. With the continuous development of deep learning in recent years, its advantages are constantly displayed, especially in the aspect of image recognition and processing, it drives into the distance. Thanks to the superiority of deep learning in image processing, the combination of remote sensing images and deep learning has attracted more attention. To simulate the four key factors of rice yield, this article tries a regression model with a combination of various characteristic independent variables. In this article, the selection of the best linear and nonlinear regression models is discussed, the prediction performance and significance of each regression model are analyzed, and some thoughts are given on estimation of actual rice yield.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35515497 PMCID: PMC9064530 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1922561
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Histogram and Q-Q diagram of total production in the field.
Results of the normality test for rice yield in field plot.
| Kolmogorov–Smirnov | Shapiro–Wilk | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistics | Df | Salience | Statis | Df | Salience | |
| Total plot yield (dependent variable) | 0.30 | 195 | 0.200b | 0.995 | 195 | 0.715 |
Figure 2Correlation analysis between the TPCA, OPCA, and FPRY.
Parametric predictive model analysis of the single variables.
| Univariate predictive models |
| Adjusted | Standard estimate error |
| Salience | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPCA | Linear | 0.288 | 0.285 | 53.353 | 76.549 | 0.000 |
| Index | 0.299 | 0.295 | 0.317 | S0.4S6 | 0.000 | |
| Logarithm | 0.294 | 0.290 | 53.148 | 78.600 | 0.000 | |
| Polynomial | 0.301 | 0.290 | 53.137 | 26.904 | 0.000 | |
| Power function | 0.349 | 0.345 | 0.306 | 101.171 | 0.000 | |
|
| ||||||
| OPCA | Linear | 0.412 | 0.409 | 49.298 | 134.519 | 0.000 |
| Index | 0.414 | 0.411 | 0.299 | 135.426 | 0.000 | |
| Logarithm | 0.439 | 0.436 | 48.156 | 150.185 | 0.000 | |
| Polynomial | 0.452 | 0.444 | 47.823 | 52.324 | 0.000 | |
| Power function | 0.513 | 0.511 | 0.272 | 202.493 | 0.000 | |
Two-variable regression: Model 1.
|
| Adjusted | Significance of the | Durbin–Watson | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 0.391 | 0.385 | 0.000 | 1.696 |
Correlation between single panicle detail image traits and plot yields.
| Pearson correlation coefficient (R) | Correlation coefficient dominance | |
|---|---|---|
| Single Inaho image correction surface (SPCA) | 0.470 | 0.000 |
| Single ear length (SPL) | 0.376 | 0.000 |
Plot rice yield regression: Model 2.
|
| Adjusted | Significance of the | Durbin–Watson | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 2 | 0.425 | 0.413 | 0.000 | 1.699 |
Plot rice yield regression: Model 3.
|
| Adjusted | Significance of the | Durbin–Watson | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 3 | 0.475 | 0.456 | 0.000 | 1.895 |
Filtering traits using stepwise linear regression.
|
| Adjusted | Significance of the | Durbin–Watson | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of rounds 1a | 0.380 | 0.376 | 0.000 | |
| Number of rounds 2b | 0.425 | 0.419 | 0.000 | 1.790 |
| Number of rounds 3c | 0.462 | 0.453 | 0.001 | |
| (Model 4) |
a, predicted value: (constant), OPCA, b, predicted value: (constant), OPCA, SRSR, c, predicted value: (constant), OPCA, SRSR, SPCA.
Figure 3Prediction of the residual distribution histogram and P–P graph for Model 4.