Comparison of Commercial Crop Canopy Sensors Ken Sudduth Newell Kitchen Scott Drummond USDA-ARS, Columbia, Missouri.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Do In and Post-Season Plant-Based Measurements Predict Corn Performance and/ or Residual Soil Nitrate? Patrick J. Forrestal, R. Kratochvil, J.J Meisinger.
Advertisements

Missouri algorithm for N in corn
Determine seeding rate and hybrid effects on: Phenotypical and physiological plant measurements Canopy and leaf sensor measurements A goal in precision.
Crop Canopy Sensors for High Throughput Phenomic Systems
SPAD Chlorophyll Meter in Greenhouse Horticulture
FIELD-SCALE N APPLICATION USING CROP REFLECTANCE SENSORS Ken Sudduth and Newell Kitchen USDA-ARS Translating Missouri USDA-ARS Research and Technology.
EVALUATION OF GREENSEEKER FOR NITROGEN FETILIZATION IN COTTON ALABAMA REPORT 1 Evaluation of Green Seeker for Nitrogen Fertilization in Cotton – Preliminary.
SKYE INSTRUMENTS LTD Llandrindod Wells, United Kingdom.
Sensor Orientation to maize canopy row and estimating biomass and Nitrogen Status Paul Hodgen, Fernando Solari, Jim Schepers, John Shanahan, Dennis Francis.
N Reflections on Years of Sensor Research Algorithm Development and Jim Schepers.
Estimating forest structure in wetlands using multitemporal SAR by Philip A. Townsend Neal Simpson ES 5053 Final Project.
Real-Time Corn Assessment for Variable Rate Nitrogen Management Newell R. Kitchen, Kenneth A. Sudduth USDA-ARS, Columbia, MO Peter Scharf, Harlan Palm,
Strategies for the Selection of Substitute Meteorological Data Ken Sejkora Entergy Nuclear Northeast – Pilgrim Station Presented at the 14 th Annual RETS-REMP.
Comparison of Active Optical Sensors
Outline Introduction – Importance for SE Mississippi State – Sensor Comparison – Wavelength/Index Analysis University of Arkansas – Active detection of.
GreenSeekerTM Variable Rate Applicator Equipment and Applications
NUE Workshop: Improving NUE using Crop Sensing, Waseca, MN
Nitrogen Use Efficiency Workshop Canopy Reflectance Signatures: Developing a Crop Need-Based Indicator for Sidedress Application of N Fertilizer to Canola.
Differences b etween Red and Green NDVI, What do they predict and what they don’t predict Shambel Maru.
Crop Spec, A Collaborative Partnership A real time integrated plant nutrient monitoring and application system for Agricultural equipment.
Field-Scale Sensor Evaluation Ken Sudduth, Newell Kitchen, Scott Drummond USDA-ARS Columbia MO.
GreenSeeker® Handheld Crop Sensor
 Several Sensor Based N Rate Calculations exist.  There are two distinct approaches to N rate calculations.  Use of Yield Prediction and Response 
Are NDVI Readings Sensors Dependent? Tremblay, N., Z. Wang, B. Ma, C. Bélec and P. Vigneault St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec.
NDVI: What It Is and What It Measures Danielle Williams.
Interfacing Sensors with (VR)Application Equipment Scott Drummond Ken Sudduth IT Specialist Agricultural Engineer.
The Use of Red and Green Reflectance in the Calculation of NDVI for Wheat, Bermudagrass, and Corn Robert W. Mullen SOIL 4213 Robert W. Mullen SOIL 4213.
UTILIZATION OF CROP SENSORS TO DETECT COTTON GROWTH AND N NUTRITION
Active-Crop Sensor Calibration Using the Virtual-Reference Concept K. H. Holland (Holland Scientific) J. S. Schepers (USDA-ARS, retired) 8 th ECPA Conference.
GreenSeeker Sensor Brian Arnall Precision Nutrient Management Plant and Soil Sciences Department Oklahoma State University.
Improving NUE Using Crop Sensing : “It Takes a Village”
A Simplified Linear Transformation to Calculate N Application Rates in Corn and Wheat.
Missouri algorithm: Design & objectives Peter Scharf University of Missouri Peter Scharf Newell Kitchen, Ken Sudduth, Glenn Davis, John Lory, Vicky Hubbard,
Variable-Rate N Fertilization of Wheat and Corn in the Mid-Atlantic Variable-Rate N Fertilization of Wheat and Corn in the Mid-Atlantic Wade Thomason,
Automated Calibration Stamp Technology for Improved In-Season Nitrogen Fertilization K. Freeman, R. Teal, C. Mack, K. Martin, B. Arnall, K. Desta, J. Solie,
Development of Vegetation Indices as Economic Thresholds for Control of Defoliating Insects of Soybean James BoardVijay MakaRandy PriceDina KnightMatthew.
Refinement of the Missouri Corn Nitrogen Algorithm Using Canopy Reflectance Newell Kitchen, Ken Sudduth, and Scott Drummond USDA-Agricultural Research.
State of Engineering in Precision Agriculture, Boundaries and Limits for Agronomy.
Yield Cleaning Software and Techniques OFPE Meeting
Moving Beyond NDVI for Active Sensing in Cotton
Ag Leader Crop Sensors. May 2008 announced worldwide distribution of Holland Scientific (HS) crop sensor Holland Scientific Crop Sensor Commercializing.
Estimating Cotton Defoliation with Remote Sensing Glen Ritchie 1 and Craig Bednarz 2 1 UGA Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 2 Texas Tech, Lubbock,
On-farm Evaluation of Optical Sensor Technology for Variable Rate N Application to Corn in Ontario and Quebec Bao-Luo Ma, and Nicolas Tremblay Eastern.
Corn Nitrogen Management: Progress in Missouri Newell R. Kitchen, Kenneth A. Sudduth, and John Hummel USDA-ARS, Columbia, MO USDA-ARS, Columbia, MO Peter.
Generalized Algorithm for Variable Rate Nitrogen Application on Cereal Grains John B. Solie, Regents Professor Biosystems and Agri. Engineering Dept. William.
NFOA for Wheat and Corn. Yield Potential Definitions INSEYIn Season Estimated Yield = NDVI (Feekes 4 to 6)/days from planting to sensing (days.
REAL-TIME CALIBRATION OF ACTIVE CROP SENSOR SYSTEM FOR MAKING IN-SEASON N APPLICATIONS K.H. Holland and J.S. Schepers Holland Scientific and USDA-ARS,
Dave Franzen – North Dakota State University Newell Kitchen – USDA-ARS, Columbia, MO Laura Stevens, Richard Ferguson – University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Technology for Crop Production John Nowatzki Extension Ag Machine Systems Specialist.
Expression of Spatial Variability in Corn (Zea mays L.) as Influenced by Growth Stage Using Optical Sensor Measurements By-Plant Prediction of Corn (Zea.
Drew Tucker and Dave Mengel KSU Agronomy An update on Kansas sensor based N recommendations.
Regional Project Objectives  To evaluate the performance of sensor-based N recommendation algorithms across a wide range of soil and climate conditions.
Using vegetation indices (NDVI) to study vegetation
Developing Sidedress N Recommendations for Corn in Central PA
NDVI Active Sensors in Sugarbeet Production for In-Season and Whole Rotation Nitrogen Management.
Evolution of OSU Optical Sensor Based Variable Rate Applicator
Sensor Algorithms.
Crop-based Approach for In-season N Application
E.V. Lukina, K.W. Freeman,K.J. Wynn, W.E. Thomason, G.V. Johnson,
Sensor Readings in Corn as Affected by Time of Day
Dave Franzen – North Dakota State University
UNL Algorithm for N in Corn
Crop Spec, A Collaborative Partnership
Eric Miller August 3rd, 2010 Dr. Camberato & Dr. Nielsen
K. Freeman, B. Raun, K. Martin, R.Teal, D. Arnall, M. Stone, J. Solie
Tastes Great. Less Filling
Variability in Corn Response to N Fertilizer along a 1000-ft Hillslope
Reflectance and Sensor Basics
Newell R. Kitchen, Kenneth A. Sudduth USDA-ARS, Columbia, MO
Presentation transcript:

Comparison of Commercial Crop Canopy Sensors Ken Sudduth Newell Kitchen Scott Drummond USDA-ARS, Columbia, Missouri

Began on-farm research using canopy sensors in 2004 Field-length sensor-controlled strips and imbedded small plots to define N response variability across landscapes Data were collected with GreenSeeker and Crop Circle ACS-210; N application based on CC data Missouri VR-N research

ARS-Missouri system Implemented on a Spra-Coupe Used a “binary nozzle” concept with 3 different valve manifolds

Spra-Coupe application system Drop nozzles with 1x, 2x, and 4x orifice plates were installed in row middles to cover 6-row strip plots Nominal application rates: 1x = 30 lb N/acre 2x = 603x = 90 4x = 1205x = 1506x = 1807x = 210

Are Crop Circle and GreenSeeker sensor readings different? They’re not identical, but since they follow a straight line, we can use either one – if the rate equation is adjusted correctly

Comparison of application rates – Not much difference Crop Circle GreenSeeker

Most of our early data analysis and interpretation was with Crop Circle (ACS-210) data – how do GreenSeeker and Topcon CropSpec sensors compare? A 2009 study comparing commercial sensors gave unexpected results Study was redesigned and repeated in 2010 Three commercial sensors were compared based on: Relative NDVI Temporal stability Correlation to SPAD and crop height Missouri VR-N research

Materials and methods - Sensors

Holland Scientific Crop Circle ACS-210 NTech Industries GreenSeeker Model 505 Topcon CropSpec Visible wavelength 590 ± 5.5 nm660 ± 15 nm735 ± 5 nm NIR wavelength880 ± 10 nm770 ± 15 nm805 ± 5 nm Height above target 0.25 to 2.1 m0.6 to 1.6 m2 to 4 m View directionNadir Oblique, 45 to 55º Field of view / sensing footprint 32º x 6º 61 x 1.5 cm (~ constant over height range) 2 to 4 m wide (~ proportional to height above target)

Materials and methods - Sensors Holland Scientific Crop Circle ACS-210 NTech Industries GreenSeeker Model 505 Topcon CropSpec Visible wavelength 590 ± 5.5 nm660 ± 15 nm735 ± 5 nm NIR wavelength880 ± 10 nm770 ± 15 nm805 ± 5 nm Height above target 0.25 to 2.1 m0.6 to 1.6 m2 to 4 m View directionNadir Oblique, 45 to 55º Field of view / sensing footprint 32º x 6º 61 x 1.5 cm (~ constant over height range) 2 to 4 m wide (~ proportional to height above target)

Sensor geometry as used in previous field research: Crop Circle and GreenSeeker on rows 2 and 5 of 6- row pass; CropSpec from adjacent runs Data collected at 10 Hz from Crop Circle and GreenSeeker; 1 Hz from CropSpec

Data collection plots Response blocks with 8 N rates 0 to 235 kg/ha on 34 kg/ha increments applied soon after planting (0 to 210 lb/ac on 30 lb/ac increments) Each plot 12 rows (9 m) wide by 15 m long Two data passes with 6-row machine in each plot 2.5 m of data trimmed from each end, leaving center 10 m Reflectance data collected multiple times Corn height ~ 1 to 1.5 m Pass averages calculated and used for analysis

Auxiliary data collection Corn height Indicator of total biomass SPAD chlorophyll meter reading Indicator of leaf N concentration from Sudduth et al., 2010

Results

Comparing Crop Circle and GreenSeeker relative NDVI

Comparing Crop Circle and CropSpec relative NDVI Mean crop height = 0.9 m Mean crop height = 1.4 m

Different sensed areas Crop Circle and GreenSeeker at 10 Hz (~60 points/sensor/plot) CropSpec at 1 Hz (~6 points/sensor/plot)

Comparing relative NDVI GreenSeeker and Crop Circle highly correlated More differences between CropSpec and the two nadir sensors Sensed area of the two sensors Data not collected simultaneously (generally from adjacent run, < 5 min time difference) Slope and offset considerations

Temporal stability of sensor data

Data from all three sensors exhibited stability over a period of >7 hours (r ≥ 0.92) GreenSeeker slightly more variable over time Possible reasons for temporal differences: Driving misalignment between runs (nadir sensors) Sensor variations (ambient light effects) Ambient condition changes (leaf surface moisture, plant alignment due to wind, etc.) Physiological changes in the plants Effects were not large in this study

Relating sensor data to SPAD CropSpec most strongly related to SPAD

Relating sensor data to crop height GreenSeeker and Crop Circle more strongly related to corn height

Sensors vs. biophysical data CropSpec more predictive of SPAD (N) Oblique view minimized height/distance effect Sensed lower leaves where N was more strongly expressed Crop Circle and GreenSeeker more predictive of height (biomass) Effects of distance and also mixed soil/plant scene

Summary In a comparison of three commercial crop canopy sensors: Pass-average relative NDVIs from all three sensors were strongly correlated Highest correlation between Crop Circle and GreenSeeker Relative NDVI from all sensors was stable over time Slightly more temporal variability with GreenSeeker Relative NDVI from all sensors was related to both crop height (biomass) and SPAD (N concentration) CropSpec data most strongly affected by SPAD CC and GS more strongly affected by crop height/biomass

Summary Can CropSpec data be used in existing algorithms developed for Crop Circle or GreenSeeker? Appropriate slope and offset compensation would be required Additional field research is needed to determine stability of slope and offset values over different crop conditions Because effects of biophysical parameters are different for CropSpec than for Crop Circle and GreenSeeker better results may be obtained with sensor-specific algorithms

2011 Sensor comparison Very narrow range in 2011 sensor data Similar growth stage and crop height to 2010 data #1?#

Missouri algorithm graphically

Missouri algorithm developed from previous plot research Equations for calculating N rates (lbs N/acre) from active canopy sensors Corn Growth Stage Sensor TypeV6-V7 (1 to 1.5-ft tall corn)V8-V10 (2 to 4-ft tall corn) Crop Circle(330 x ratio target / ratio reference ) - 270(250 x ratio target / ratio reference ) GreenSeeker(220 x ratio target / ratio reference ) - 170(170 x ratio target / ratio reference ) Notes: Maximum N rate should not exceed 220 lbs N/acre. For V6-V7 corn, the value of ratio reference should not exceed 0.37 for Crop Circle and 0.30 for GreeenSeeker. Set this as a ceiling. For V8-V10 corn, the value of ratio reference should not exceed 0.25 for Crop Circle and 0.18 for GreeenSeeker. Set this as a ceiling.