The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Canopeo: A Powerful New Tool for Measuring Fractional Green Canopy Cover
Open accessAbstract
Fractional green canopy cover (FGCC) is a key diagnostic variable that can be used to estimate canopy development, light interception, and evapotranspiration partitioning. Available image analysis tools for quantifying FGCC are time‐consuming or expensive and cannot analyze video. Our objective was to develop a simple, accurate, and rapid tool to analyze FGCC from images and videos. This tool, called Canopeo, was developed using Matlab and is based on color ratios of red to green (R/G) and blue to green (B/G) and an excess green index (2G–R–B). The output from this tool was compared to that from two software packages widely used to analyze FGCC, SamplePoint, and SigmaScan Pro. Canopeo's image processing speed was 20 to 130 times faster than SigmaScan and 75 to 2500 times faster than SamplePoint. Canopeo correctly classified 90% of pixels when compared to SamplePoint. Root mean squared difference (RMSD) values for Canopeo FGCC vs. FGCC determined by SamplePoint and SigmaScan ranged from 0.04 to 0.12, with an average RMSD of 0.073 across several sets of images of corn (Zea mays L.), forage sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], bermuda grass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.], and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.). Analysis of video recordings of transects over crop canopies proved to be useful to minimize sampling error and to quantify FGCC spatial variability. This analysis was simple and rapid with Canopeo but not possible with SamplePoint or SigmaScan. The Canopeo app for Matlab and for iOS and Android mobile devices can be downloaded at www.canopeoapp.com.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., & Fereres, E. (2009) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.2134/agronj2008.0140s · Cited by 1,053
Cited by
Bastos, L. M., Carciochi, W., Lollato, R. P., Jaenisch, B. R., Rezende, C. R., Schwalbert, R., Vara Prasad, P. V., Zhang, G., Fritz, A. K., Foster, C., et al. (2020) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.00054 · Cited by 164
Plant Population and Fungicide Economically Reduced Winter Wheat Yield Gap in Kansas
Jaenisch, B. R., de Oliveira Silva, A., DeWolf, E., Ruiz‐Diaz, D. A., & Lollato, R. P. (2019) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.2134/agronj2018.03.0223 · Cited by 87
Beres, B. L., Hatfield, J. L., Kirkegaard, J. A., Eigenbrode, S. D., Pan, W. L., Lollato, R. P., Hunt, J. R., Strydhorst, S., Porker, K., Lyon, D., et al. (2020) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.00828 · Cited by 66
A layer-by-layer quality monitoring framework for 3D printing
Najjartabar Bisheh, M., Chang, S. I., & Lei, S. (2021) · Computers & Industrial Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cie.2021.107314 · Cited by 58
Modulation of Wheat Yield Components in Response to Management Intensification to Reduce Yield Gaps
Jaenisch, B. R., Munaro, L. B., Jagadish, S. V. K., & Lollato, R. P. (2022) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.772232 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Patrignani, A., & Ochsner, T. E.
- Venue
- Agronomy Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-11
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2312-2320
- ISSN
- 0002-1962 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-0645
- OpenAlex
- W2292421548
- Cited by
- 602
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Canopeo: A Powerful New Tool for Measuring Fractional Green Canopy Cover. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2134/agronj15.0150
- The paper
- Patrignani, A., & Ochsner, T. E. (2015). Canopeo: A Powerful New Tool for Measuring Fractional Green Canopy Cover. Agronomy Journal. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj15.0150
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.