Comparison of two different measurement techniques for automated determination of plum tree canopy cover

The transnational project “3D Mosaic” deals with the optimisation of water and fertiliser efficiency in orchards. Detection of the canopy coverage at tree level provides information about the growth capacity of the tree and enables estimation of the possible yield or the influence of reduced water supply in an orchard. Detection must be performed in an automated mode that may be achieved by means of two optical approaches: NIR image analysis, with the calculation of leaf coverage within the image versus non-covered area, and counting the number of laser-scanner (LiDAR) hits per tree. The present study, conducted in an experimental orchard of 180 plum trees, aimed to evaluate and compare these methods using a vertical top-down viewing direction for the sensors. Image analysis showed a higher susceptibility to the sensor mounting height and tilting movements of the carrier vehicle than did the LiDAR measurements. However, on uniform terrain, a Pearson correlation of 0.917 between the systems could be achieved. Both techniques were compared with the manually counted number of leaves per tree for the entire orchard and with the estimated total leaf area for 30 strategically distributed trees. Due to different shapes of the tree crown, the comparison with the leaf numbers yielded lower Pearson correlations for the pollinator cultivar (0.703 with LiDAR, 0.668 with camera) than for the productive trees (0.805 with LiDAR, 0.832 with camera). Comparison of the sensors with the estimated leaf areas yielded correlation coefficients of 0.867 with the laser scanner and 0.788 with image analysis.

[1]  N. Breda Ground-based measurements of leaf area index: a review of methods, instruments and current controversies. , 2003, Journal of experimental botany.

[2]  A Nondestructive Image Analysis Technique for Estimating Whole-tree Leaf Area , 1992 .

[3]  E. Hunt,et al.  Estimating near-infrared leaf reflectance from leaf structural characteristics. , 2001, American journal of botany.

[4]  Neil A. Clark,et al.  Digital photography for urban street tree crown conditions , 2006 .

[5]  Wouter Saeys,et al.  Estimation of the crop density of small grains using LiDAR sensors. , 2009 .

[6]  E. Gregory McPherson,et al.  Evaluation of four methods for estimating leaf area of isolated trees , 2003 .

[7]  Rama Rao Nidamanuri,et al.  Transferring spectral libraries of canopy reflectance for crop classification using hyperspectral remote sensing data , 2011 .

[8]  Frédéric Baret,et al.  Review of methods for in situ leaf area index determination Part I. Theories, sensors and hemispherical photography , 2004 .

[9]  F. Baret,et al.  Review of methods for in situ leaf area index (LAI) determination: Part II. Estimation of LAI, errors and sampling , 2004 .

[10]  Ruiliang Pu,et al.  Mapping urban forest tree species using IKONOS imagery: preliminary results , 2011, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[11]  W. Parker,et al.  Estimating biomass of white spruce seedlings with vertical photo imagery , 2000, New Forests.

[12]  Detlef Ehlert,et al.  Assessment of a laser scanner on agricultural machinery. , 2010 .

[13]  Y. J. Han,et al.  SOIL COVER DETERMINATION BY IMAGE ANALYSIS OF TEXTURAL INFORMATION , 1990 .

[14]  E. Mcpherson,et al.  Comparison of Five Methods for Estimating Leaf Area Index of Open-Grown Deciduous Trees , 1998, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[15]  B Palcic,et al.  Fractal texture features based on optical density surface area. Use in image analysis of cervical cells. , 1990, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[16]  D. Ehlert,et al.  Testing a vehicle-based scanning lidar sensor for crop detection , 2010 .

[17]  R. Jackson,et al.  Spectral response of a plant canopy with different soil backgrounds , 1985 .