{"title":"Usability of smartphone-based RGB vegetation indices for steppe rangeland inventory and monitoring","authors":"Onur İeri","doi":"10.1007/s11119-024-10195-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Rapid rangeland monitoring is critical for implementing management actions effectively and therefore, various remote sensing methods are used for rangeland monitoring. Prices of high-resolution imagery and cloud problems could avoid practicing satellite based-methods. UAV- or ground-based high resolution RGB imagery suggested as an alternative to monitor rangelands. In this study, the performance of smartphone RGB imagery was evaluated over prediction of biomass yield and forage quality of steppe rangelands. Besides, the performance of a mobile application (Canopeo) over rangeland cover was evaluated. RGB band reflection values of smartphone images were determined using a simple open-source software, ImageJ. A total of thirteen different vegetation indices (eleven commonly used and two newly introduced) were estimated and their relations with ground data were evaluated over simple linear and quadratic regression models. AGB and DMY were predicted with moderate accuracy via the newly introduced modified blue-red-green index (MBRGI) (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.5 for AGB) and recently used normalized difference blue-red index (NDBRI) (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.46 for DMY) through quadratic regression models. Green leaf index (Gli), visible atmospheric resistant index (Vari), and red green blue vegetation index (RGBVI) gave better results for forage quality predictions among the other VI’s. Gli was an accurate predictor (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.78) of forage dry matter content. However, prediction performances of VI’s were low for CP (Vari, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.26), NDF, and ADF contents (RGBVI, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.31 and 0.37 respectively). Cover data of Canopeo highly correlated both with transect (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.99) and modified wheel loop (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.73) data. These results showed that Canopeo might be a useful tool for cover predictions and smartphone-based RGB imagery has good potential for managing rangeland in terms of yield and dry matter content but the accuracy of both yield and forage quality predictions still needs to be improved.</p>","PeriodicalId":20423,"journal":{"name":"Precision Agriculture","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Precision Agriculture","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-024-10195-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Rapid rangeland monitoring is critical for implementing management actions effectively and therefore, various remote sensing methods are used for rangeland monitoring. Prices of high-resolution imagery and cloud problems could avoid practicing satellite based-methods. UAV- or ground-based high resolution RGB imagery suggested as an alternative to monitor rangelands. In this study, the performance of smartphone RGB imagery was evaluated over prediction of biomass yield and forage quality of steppe rangelands. Besides, the performance of a mobile application (Canopeo) over rangeland cover was evaluated. RGB band reflection values of smartphone images were determined using a simple open-source software, ImageJ. A total of thirteen different vegetation indices (eleven commonly used and two newly introduced) were estimated and their relations with ground data were evaluated over simple linear and quadratic regression models. AGB and DMY were predicted with moderate accuracy via the newly introduced modified blue-red-green index (MBRGI) (R2 = 0.5 for AGB) and recently used normalized difference blue-red index (NDBRI) (R2 = 0.46 for DMY) through quadratic regression models. Green leaf index (Gli), visible atmospheric resistant index (Vari), and red green blue vegetation index (RGBVI) gave better results for forage quality predictions among the other VI’s. Gli was an accurate predictor (R2 = 0.78) of forage dry matter content. However, prediction performances of VI’s were low for CP (Vari, R2 = 0.26), NDF, and ADF contents (RGBVI, R2 = 0.31 and 0.37 respectively). Cover data of Canopeo highly correlated both with transect (R2 = 0.99) and modified wheel loop (R2 = 0.73) data. These results showed that Canopeo might be a useful tool for cover predictions and smartphone-based RGB imagery has good potential for managing rangeland in terms of yield and dry matter content but the accuracy of both yield and forage quality predictions still needs to be improved.
期刊介绍:
Precision Agriculture promotes the most innovative results coming from the research in the field of precision agriculture. It provides an effective forum for disseminating original and fundamental research and experience in the rapidly advancing area of precision farming.
There are many topics in the field of precision agriculture; therefore, the topics that are addressed include, but are not limited to:
Natural Resources Variability: Soil and landscape variability, digital elevation models, soil mapping, geostatistics, geographic information systems, microclimate, weather forecasting, remote sensing, management units, scale, etc.
Managing Variability: Sampling techniques, site-specific nutrient and crop protection chemical recommendation, crop quality, tillage, seed density, seed variety, yield mapping, remote sensing, record keeping systems, data interpretation and use, crops (corn, wheat, sugar beets, potatoes, peanut, cotton, vegetables, etc.), management scale, etc.
Engineering Technology: Computers, positioning systems, DGPS, machinery, tillage, planting, nutrient and crop protection implements, manure, irrigation, fertigation, yield monitor and mapping, soil physical and chemical characteristic sensors, weed/pest mapping, etc.
Profitability: MEY, net returns, BMPs, optimum recommendations, crop quality, technology cost, sustainability, social impacts, marketing, cooperatives, farm scale, crop type, etc.
Environment: Nutrient, crop protection chemicals, sediments, leaching, runoff, practices, field, watershed, on/off farm, artificial drainage, ground water, surface water, etc.
Technology Transfer: Skill needs, education, training, outreach, methods, surveys, agri-business, producers, distance education, Internet, simulations models, decision support systems, expert systems, on-farm experimentation, partnerships, quality of rural life, etc.