Positioning Accuracy Comparison of GNSS Receivers Used for Mapping and Guidance of Agricultural Machines

Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) allow the determination of the 3D position of a point on the Earth’s surface by measuring the distance from the receiver antenna to the orbital position of at least four satellites. Selecting and buying a GNSS receiver, depending on farm needs, is the first step for implementing precision agriculture. The aim of this work is to compare the positioning accuracy of four GNSS receivers, different for technical features and working modes: L1/L2 frequency survey-grade Real-Time Kinematic (RTK)-capable Stonex S7-G (S7); L1 frequency RTK-capable Stonex S5 (S5); L1 frequency Thales MobileMapper Pro (TMMP); low-cost L1 frequency Quanum GPS Logger V2 (QLV2). In order to evaluate the positioning accuracy of these receivers, i.e., the distance of the determined points from a reference trajectory, different tests, distinguished by the use or not of Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) differential correction data and/or an external antenna, were carried out. The results show that all satellite receivers tested carried out with the external antenna had an improvement in positioning accuracy. The Thales MobileMapper Pro satellite receiver showed the worst positioning accuracy. The low-cost Quanum GPS Logger V2 receiver surprisingly showed an average positioning error of only 0.550 m. The positioning accuracy of the above-mentioned receiver was slightly worse than that obtained using Stonex S7-G without the external antenna and differential correction (maximum positioning error 0.749 m). However, this accuracy was even better than that recorded using Stonex S5 without differential correction, both with and without the external antenna (average positioning error of 0.962 m and 1.368 m).

[1]  R. Cattell The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. , 1966, Multivariate behavioral research.

[2]  Juan Agüera,et al.  Comparison of positional accuracy between rtk and rtx gnss based on the autonomous agricultural vehicles under field conditions , 2014 .

[3]  H. Kaiser The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis , 1960 .

[4]  Michele Raffaelli,et al.  Autonomous Mowers Working in Narrow Spaces: A Possible Future Application in Agriculture? , 2020, Agronomy.

[5]  Marco Vieri,et al.  Characterization of the Transverse Distribution of Fertilizer in Coffee Plantations , 2020 .

[6]  Eko Yuli Handoko,et al.  Assessment of the Single Frequency Low Cost GPS RTK Positioning , 2019, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.

[7]  Roland Gerhards,et al.  The Economic Impact of Site-Specific Weed Control , 2003, Precision Agriculture.

[8]  M. Pérez-Ruiz,et al.  Assessing GNSS correction signals for assisted guidance systems in agricultural vehicles , 2010, Precision Agriculture.

[9]  Claudia Pipitone,et al.  GNSS CORS NETWORK OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PALERMO:DESIGN AND FIRST ANALYSIS OF DATA , 2020 .

[10]  Juan Agüera,et al.  Autonomous systems for precise spraying – Evaluation of a robotised patch sprayer , 2016 .

[11]  W. Stempfhuber,et al.  A PRECISE, LOW-COST RTK GNSS SYSTEM FOR UAV APPLICATIONS , 2012 .

[12]  Claus G. Sørensen,et al.  Metric Map Generation for Autonomous Field Operations , 2020, Agronomy.

[13]  Michael Robertson,et al.  Economic benefits of variable rate technology: case studies from Australian grain farms , 2009 .