Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T04:26:01.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Extraction of Small Spatial Plots from Geo-Registered UAS Imagery of Crop Fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2015

Anthony A. Hearst  and
Keith A. Cherkauer
Anthony A. Hearst*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Keith A. Cherkauer
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
*
*Address correspondence to: Anthony A. Hearst, Purdue University, 225 S. University St., West Lafayette, IN 47907; (phone) 415-940-1057; (fax) 415-520-6560; (e-mail) ahearst@purdue.edu.
Get access

Abstract

Experimental crop fields often contain large numbers of small spatial plots that require separate analysis. It can be difficult to precisely locate these plots in high-resolution imagery of the fields gathered by Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). This prevents UAS imagery from being applied in High-Throughput Precision Phenotyping and other areas of agricultural research. If the imagery is accurately geo-registered, then it may be possible to extract plots from the imagery based on their map coordinates. To test this approach, a UAS was used to acquire visual imagery of 5 ha of soybean fields containing 6.0 m 2 plots. Sixteen artificial targets were set up in the fields before flights to be used as Ground Control Points (GCPs) for geo-registration. Geo-registration accuracy was quantified based on the horizontal Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) of targets used as checkpoints. Twenty test plots were extracted from the geo-registered imagery. Plot extraction accuracy was quantified based on the percentage of the desired plot area that was extracted. It was found that using four GCPs minimized the horizontal RMSE and enabled a plot extraction accuracy of at least 70%, with a mean plot extraction accuracy of 92%. Future work will focus on enhancing the plot extraction accuracy through additional image processing techniques so that it becomes sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes in agricultural research and potentially other areas of research.

Environmental Practice 17: 178–187 (2015)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 178 - 187
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackermann, F. 1966. On the theoretical accuracy of planimetric block triangulation. Photogrammetria 21(5):145–170.Google Scholar
Araus, J. L., and Cairns, J.E.. 2014. Field high-throughput phenotyping: the new crop breeding frontier. Trends in Plant Science 19(1):52–61.Google Scholar
Cabrera-Bosquet, L., Crossa, J., von Zitzewitz, J., Serret, M.D., and Araus, J.L.. 2012. High-throughput phenotyping and genomic selection: the frontiers of crop breeding converge. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 54(5):312–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devore, J. L. 2012. Probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences, 8th edition. Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Douterloigne, K., Gautama, S., and Philips, W.. 2010. On the accuracy of 3D landscapes from UAV image data. International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 589–592.Google Scholar
Gomez-Candon, D., Lopez-Granados, F., Caballero-Novella, J.J., Gomez-Casero, M., Jurado-Exposito, M., and Garcia-Torres, L.. 2011. Geo-referencing remote images for precision agriculture using artificial terrestrial targets. Precision Agriculture 12(6):876–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez-Candon, D., Lopez-Granados, F., Caballero-Novella, J.J., Pena-Barragan, J.M., Gomez-Casero, M., Jurado-Exposito, M., and Garcia-Torres, L.. 2012. Understanding the errors in input prescription maps based on high spatial resolution remote-sensed images (IPME). Precision Agriculture 13(5):581–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harwin, S., and Lucieer, A.. 2012. Assessing the accuracy of georeferenced point clouds produced via multi-view stereopsis from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery. Remote Sensing 4(6):1573–1599.Google Scholar
Kraus, K. 2007. Photogrammetry: geometry from images and laser scans, (I. Harley and S. Kyle, Translation). 2nd edition. Walter De Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, (Original untranslated work published in 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Küng, O., Strecha, C., Beyeler, A., Zufferey, J.C., Floreano, D., Fua, P., and Gervaix, F.. 2012. The accuracy of automatic photogrammetric techniques on ultra-light UAV imagery. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XXXVIII-1/C22 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, D. C. 2007. Applied statistics and probability for engineers, 4th edition. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
Pix4D. Processed with Pix4Dmapper by Pix4D [computer software]. Version 1.1.45. Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Rosnell, T., and Honkavaara, E.. 2012. Point cloud generation from aerial image data acquired by a quadrocopter type micro unmanned aerial vehicle and a digital still camera. Sensors 12(1):453–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, D., Lucieer, A., and Watson, C.. 2012. An automated technique for generating georectified mosaics from ultra-high resolution unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery based on structure from motion (SfM) point clouds. Remote Sensing 4(5):1392–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar