Comparison of crop canopy reflectance sensors used to identify sugarcane biomass and nitrogen status
- 1.2k Downloads
Canopy reflectance sensors are useful tools for guiding nitrogen fertilization in crops. However, studies of sugarcane comparing the efficiency of different devices for determining crop parameters are scarce. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of canopy sensors in detecting sugarcane variability. Four nitrogen (N) rate experiments were conducted (plots), along with biomass sampling, chlorophyll meter readings and leaf N concentration determination in another four fields by canopy sensor readings guided samplings. The examined canopy sensors were GreenSeeker and two Crop Circle models (ACS-210 and ACS-430), which allowed the calculation of different normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) configurations. Neither of the canopy sensors showed a correlation with the obtained chlorophyll meter readings (SPAD) or leaf N content within the fields, while high correlations with above-ground biomass were found, indicating that the plant population and vigor interfered with the canopy sensor readings. The devices showed similar suitability in terms of N rate differentiation and correlations with crop parameters. However, the NDVI calculated from the Crop Circle ACS-430 sensor using a red-edge waveband (NDRE) showed the best results, displaying the greatest range of measured values and the highest sensitivity as a biomass predictor. Regardless of the canopy sensor and wavebands used, all of the analyzed sensors proved to be good tools for identifying the variability of crop development in sugarcane fields.
KeywordsPrecision agriculture Remote sensing Proximal sensing Vegetation indices NDVI
This work would not have been possible without the collaboration of São Martinho’s Mill team and Máquinas Agrícolas Jacto. We acknowledge the Research and Projects Financing (FINEP) received from the Ministry of Science and Technology, through the PROSENSAP project for financial support and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for providing a doctoral scholarship to the first author. We also thank the Agronomic Institute of Campinas (IAC) and Dr. Heitor Cantarella for making available some of their experimental trials.
- Amaral, L. R., Portz, G., Rosa, H. J. A., & Molin, J. P. (2012). Use of active crop canopy reflectance sensor for nitrogen sugarcane fertilization. p. 15. In 11th International Conference on Precision Agriculture.Google Scholar
- Bremner, J. M., & Mulvaney, C. S. (1982). Nitrogen total. pp. 595–624. In Page, A.L. et al. (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA: Madison, WI.Google Scholar
- Cao, Q., Miao, Y., Gao, X., Feng, G., & Liu, B. (2012). Performance of two active canopy sensors for estimating winter wheat nitrogen status in North China Plain. In 11th International Conference on Precision Agriculture. Indianapolis.Google Scholar
- EMBRAPA - Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation. Brazilian soil classification system. (2006). (In Portuguese.), 2nd ed. EMBRAPA, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Google Scholar
- Erdle, K., Mistele, B., & Schmidhalter, U. (2012). Comparison of active and passive spectral sensors in discriminating biomass parameters and nitrogen status in wheat cultivars. In 11th International Conference on Precision Agriculture.Google Scholar
- FAO. (2011). Food and Agriculture Organization. Faostat. http://faostat.fao.org/. Accessed 27 Aug. 2014.
- Ferreira, D. F. (2011). SISVAR: a computer statistical analysis system. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 35, 1039–1042.Google Scholar
- Shiratsuchi, L. S., Ferguson, R. B., Shanahan, J. F., Adamchuk, V. I., & Slater, G. P. (2010). Comparision of spectral indices derived from active crop canopy sensors for assessing nitrogen and water status. In 10th International Conference on Precision Agriculture. Denver, CO.Google Scholar
- Sudduth, K. A., Kitchen, N. R., & Drummond, S. T. (2010). Comparison of three canopy reflectance sensors for variable-rate nitrogen application in corn. In 10th International Conference on Precision Agriculture. Denver, CO.Google Scholar
- Taubinger, L., Amaral, L. R., & Molin, J. P. (2012). Vegetation indices from active crop canopy sensor and their potential interference factors on sugarcane. p. 13. In 11th International Conference on Precision Agriculture.Google Scholar
- Viña, A., & Gitelson, A. A. (2005). New developments in the remote estimation of the fraction of absorbed photosyntetically active radiation in crops. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, 1–4.Google Scholar