Quantifying turfgrass cover using digital image analysis

被引:350
作者
Richardson, MD [1 ]
Karcher, DE
Purcell, LC
机构
[1] Univ Arkansas, Dept Hort, Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA
[2] Univ Arkansas, Dept Crop & Soil Environm Sci, Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA
关键词
D O I
10.2135/cropsci2001.1884
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Accurate cover estimates in turfgrass research plots are often difficult to obtain because of the time involved with traditional sampling and evaluation techniques. Subjective ratings are commonly used to estimate turfgrass cover, but the data can be quite variable and difficult to reproduce. New technologies and software related to digital image analysis (DIA) may provide an alternative method to measure turfgrass parameters more accurately and efficiently than current techniques. A series of studies was conducted to determine the applicability of DIA for turfgrass cover estimates. In the first study, plots containing a range (1-16) of bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] plugs of specific diameter (15.0 cm) were established to represent values of turfgrass cover from 0.75 to 12%, by 0.75% increments. Digital images (1280 by 960 pixels) were taken with a digital camera and processed for percent green color to a software package. Estimates of green turfgrass cover by DIA were highly correlated (r(2) > 0.99) to the calculated values of turfgrass cover. In a second study, DIA of turfgrass cover was compared by subjective analysis (SA) and line-intersect analysis (LIA) methods for estimating cover in eight plots of zoysiagrass (Zoysia japonica Steudel). The mean variance of percent cover determined by DIA (0.65) was significantly lower than SA (99.12) or LIA (13.18). Digital image analysis proved to be an effective means of determining turfgrass cover, producing both accurate and reproducible data. In addition, the technique effectively removes the inherent error and evaluator bias commonly associated with subjective ratings.
引用
收藏
页码:1884 / 1888
页数:5
相关论文
共 10 条
[1]   Factors affecting great percentage in oat [J].
Doehlert, DC ;
McMullen, MS ;
Baumann, RR .
CROP SCIENCE, 1999, 39 (06) :1858-1865
[2]   Quantitative color image analysis of agronomic images [J].
Ewing, RP ;
Horton, R .
AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 1999, 91 (01) :148-153
[3]   ASSESSMENT OF VISUAL EVALUATION TECHNIQUES [J].
HORST, GL ;
ENGELKE, MC ;
MEYERS, W .
AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 1984, 76 (04) :619-622
[4]  
Kershaw KA, 1973, Quantitative and Dynamic Plant Ecology
[5]  
Laycock R. W., 1980, Journal of the Sports Turf Research Institute, V56, P91
[6]  
MORRIS KN, 2000, 0012 NTEP USDA ARS
[7]   A comparison of quadrat, capacitance meter, HFRO sward stick, and rising plate for estimating herbage mass in a smooth-stalked, meadowgrass-dominant white clover sward [J].
Murphy, WM ;
Silman, JP ;
Barreto, ADM .
GRASS AND FORAGE SCIENCE, 1995, 50 (04) :452-455
[8]   Soybean canopy coverage and light interception measurements using digital imagery [J].
Purcell, LC .
CROP SCIENCE, 2000, 40 (03) :834-837
[9]  
Skogley C. R., 1992, AGRON MONOGR, V32, P589, DOI DOI 10.2134/AGRONMONOGR32.C17
[10]   Relationship of multispectral radiometry data to qualitative data in turfgrass research [J].
Trenholm, LE ;
Carrow, RN ;
Duncan, RR .
CROP SCIENCE, 1999, 39 (03) :763-769