Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Estimation of Biomass and Canopy Height in Bermudagrass, Alfalfa, and Wheat Using Ultrasonic, Laser, and Spectral Sensors
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Estimation of Biomass and Canopy Height in Bermudagrass, Alfalfa, and Wheat Using Ultrasonic, Laser, and Spectral Sensors
Do you wish to request the book?
Estimation of Biomass and Canopy Height in Bermudagrass, Alfalfa, and Wheat Using Ultrasonic, Laser, and Spectral Sensors
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Estimation of Biomass and Canopy Height in Bermudagrass, Alfalfa, and Wheat Using Ultrasonic, Laser, and Spectral Sensors
2015
Overview
Non-destructive biomass estimation of vegetation has been performed via remote sensing as well as physical measurements. An effective method for estimating biomass must have accuracy comparable to the accepted standard of destructive removal. Estimation or measurement of height is commonly employed to create a relationship between height and mass. This study examined several types of ground-based mobile sensing strategies for forage biomass estimation. Forage production experiments consisting of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.], and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) were employed to examine sensor biomass estimation (laser, ultrasonic, and spectral) as compared to physical measurements (plate meter and meter stick) and the traditional harvest method (clipping). Predictive models were constructed via partial least squares regression and modeled estimates were compared to the physically measured biomass. Least significant difference separated mean estimates were examined to evaluate differences in the physical measurements and sensor estimates for canopy height and biomass. Differences between methods were minimal (average percent error of 11.2% for difference between predicted values versus machine and quadrat harvested biomass values (1.64 and 4.91 t·ha−1, respectively), except at the lowest measured biomass (average percent error of 89% for harvester and quad harvested biomass < 0.79 t·ha−1) and greatest measured biomass (average percent error of 18% for harvester and quad harvested biomass >6.4 t·ha−1). These data suggest that using mobile sensor-based biomass estimation models could be an effective alternative to the traditional clipping method for rapid, accurate in-field biomass estimation.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
