Estimation of Key Dates and Stages in Rice Crops Using Dual-Polarization SAR Time Series and a Particle Filtering Approach

Information of crop phenology is essential for evaluating crop productivity. In a previous work, we determined phenological stages with remote sensing data using a dynamic system framework and an extended Kalman filter (EKF) approach. In this paper, we demonstrate that the particle filter is a more reliable method to infer any phenological stage compared to the EKF. The improvements achieved with this approach are discussed. In addition, this methodology enables the estimation of key cultivation dates, thus providing a practical product for many applications. The dates of some important stages, as the sowing date and the day when the crop reaches the panicle initiation stage, have been chosen to show the potential of this technique.

Dynamical Approach for Real-Time Monitoring of Agricultural Crops

In this paper, a novel approach for exploiting multitemporal remote sensing data focused on real-time monitoring of agricultural crops is presented. The methodology is defined in a dynamical system context using state-space techniques, which enables the possibility of merging past temporal information with an update for each new acquisition. The dynamic system context allows us to exploit classical tools in this domain to perform the estimation of relevant variables. A general methodology is proposed, and a particular instance is defined in this study based on polarimetric radar data to track the phenological stages of a set of crops. A model generation from empirical data through principal component analysis is presented, and an extended Kalman filter is adapted to perform phenological stage estimation. Results employing quad-pol Radarsat-2 data over three different cereals are analyzed. The potential of this methodology to retrieve vegetation variables in real time is shown.

Euro 2012 – Ukraine’s wasted opportunity? OSW Commentary 80, 2012-06.08

Ukraine saw hosting the European Football Championship as an important project in terms of image-building and modernisation from the very beginning. The country’s government assumed, during the presidency of Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych alike, that Euro 2012 would provide a major impulse for economic development and show that the young Ukrainian state was capable of successfully preparing one of the most important sport tournaments in the world. Although UEFA’s decision raised eyebrows both in the West and in Ukraine, after initial delays the work gained momentum and, shortly before the championship, Ukraine’s progress could be evaluated as being satisfactory at the least. As part of the preparations, four stadiums were built or modernised, four airports in the host cities were developed and 1,600 km of roads were repaired or built from the ground up. The investments have doubtlessly contributed to an improvement of the infrastructure in Ukraine, but it would be rather inaccurate to say that Euro 2012 has brought about a real modernisation of the country. The funds allocated for the preparations were relatively modest, and part of them was spent in a non-transparent way, which gives rise to suspicions of corruption. The chance to improve Ukraine’s perception in the West has been to a great extent lost due to the trial of the former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, who was sentenced to seven years in prison in October 2011. Over the past few weeks, Euro 2012 as a sports event has been overshadowed by discussions among Western politicians and in the Western media about rising authoritarian tendencies in Ukraine. In turn, football is currently treated as a minor issue in Ukraine’s internal politics. The government has so far not used Euro 2012 to improve its popularity although hosting it is supported by a clear majority of the Ukrainian public. It is still an open question as to whether the Ukrainian government will try to capitalise politically on this sports event; this is especially significant as parliamentary elections are approaching.

Commencement. Ferry Field

Regents purchased south ten acres for $3000 in 1890. In 1902 UM received seven acres of land to the north from Dexter M. Ferry; became Ferry Field. In 1904 brick wall constructed on three sides and in 1906 gate and ticket office at northeast corner added (gift of Mr. Ferry). Wooden stands to accommodate 400 put up in 1893; burned in 1895. Rebuilt to seat 800 with later additions to facililties. By 1914, 13,600 accommodated. New stadium built in 1927. Stamp on verso: Ivory Photo

Quarterly journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

Vol. 3- 1877- include its Phenological report.

Annual report to the Illinois General Assembly.

Description based on: 1989 edition.

Michigan Stadium

Michigan stadium view of bleachers in beginning stage of construction

Aerial view of University of Michigan campus and vicinity

View from the Southwest with Ferry Field in foreground (football game halftime show in progress)

Papal Altar and Furniture, Pontiac Silverdome, Pontiac, Michigan, 1987

[Early Conceptual Sketches of Throne], untitled. Brown ink sketches on tracing paper, 12 x 23 1/2 inches [from photographic copy by Lance Burgharrdt]

Papal Altar and Furniture, Pontiac Silverdome, Pontiac, Michigan, 1987

[Early Conceptual Sketches of Throne], untitled. Brown ink sketches on tracing paper, 12 x 18 3/4 inches [from photographic copy by Lance Burgharrdt]

Papal Altar and Furniture, Pontiac Silverdome, Pontiac, Michigan, 1987

[Early Conceptual Sketch of Throne], untitled. Brown ink sketch on tracing paper, 12 x 19 1/4 inches [from photographic copy by Lance Burgharrdt]