A Comparison of Visual and Photographic Estimates of Weed Biomass and Weed Control

The objective of this study was to compare the consistency and accuracy of visually estimated weed biomass and weed control data to data obtained through image analysis. Weed biomass and weed control were evaluated in soybean herbicide efficacy trials conducted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Weed technology 2000-07, Vol.14 (3), p.586-590
Hauptverfasser: Christophe Neeser, Alex R. Martin, Peter Juroszek, Mortensen, David A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 590
container_issue 3
container_start_page 586
container_title Weed technology
container_volume 14
creator Christophe Neeser
Alex R. Martin
Peter Juroszek
Mortensen, David A.
description The objective of this study was to compare the consistency and accuracy of visually estimated weed biomass and weed control data to data obtained through image analysis. Weed biomass and weed control were evaluated in soybean herbicide efficacy trials conducted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln during 1992 and 1993. Measurements were based on visual estimates and on aerial photographs taken at a height of 3.5 m above the soil surface. Photographs were digitized and classified, producing pixel values for broadleaf weeds, grass weeds, soybean, and soil. Percent weed cover was calculated in relation to the crop canopy, based on the respective number of pixels per image. Visual and photographic ratings of weed biomass and of weed control were not closely correlated. In the first year the visual method discriminated between more treatments than the photographic method, but the opposite occurred in the second year. The photographic method predicted yield more closely than the visual estimates. We concluded that visual estimates were less consistent and more subject to observer bias than measurements obtained with the photographic method.
doi_str_mv 10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0586:ACOVAP]2.0.CO;2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pasca</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pascalfrancis_primary_1524376</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3988913</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3988913</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-j203t-13d10c903f1f603b1d5633706944dbc4362c98e4ea94b75520d969e2912a33b23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9js9LwzAcxYMoOKf_gYccPOih2zf5Jmmjp1rmDxhsiE5BZKRt6jq6piT14H_vnLLTg_c-7_EIGTMYMcXEGBINEWD8dskB4AqYeAeZqOs0my3S-QcfwSib3fADMmBSQsRjAYdksG8dk5MQ1gBMcQ4D8pTSzG064-vgWuoquqjDl2moaUs6X7nefXrTreqCTkJfb0xvwy_0am1Jb2u3MSHs0J2Rubb3rjklR5Vpgj371yF5uZs8Zw_RdHb_mKXTaM0B-4hhyaDQgBWrFGDOSqkQY1BaiDIvBCpe6MQKa7TIYyk5lFppyzXjBjHnOCQXf7udCYVpKm_aog7Lzm9_-u8lk1xgrLbY-R-2Dr3z-xh1kmiG-ANAZ1-I</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Index Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Comparison of Visual and Photographic Estimates of Weed Biomass and Weed Control</title><source>BioOne Complete</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Christophe Neeser ; Alex R. Martin ; Peter Juroszek ; Mortensen, David A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Christophe Neeser ; Alex R. Martin ; Peter Juroszek ; Mortensen, David A.</creatorcontrib><description>The objective of this study was to compare the consistency and accuracy of visually estimated weed biomass and weed control data to data obtained through image analysis. Weed biomass and weed control were evaluated in soybean herbicide efficacy trials conducted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln during 1992 and 1993. Measurements were based on visual estimates and on aerial photographs taken at a height of 3.5 m above the soil surface. Photographs were digitized and classified, producing pixel values for broadleaf weeds, grass weeds, soybean, and soil. Percent weed cover was calculated in relation to the crop canopy, based on the respective number of pixels per image. Visual and photographic ratings of weed biomass and of weed control were not closely correlated. In the first year the visual method discriminated between more treatments than the photographic method, but the opposite occurred in the second year. The photographic method predicted yield more closely than the visual estimates. We concluded that visual estimates were less consistent and more subject to observer bias than measurements obtained with the photographic method.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0890-037X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-2740</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0586:ACOVAP]2.0.CO;2</identifier><identifier>CODEN: WETEE9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America</publisher><subject>Analytical estimating ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomass ; Consistent estimators ; Energy crops ; Estimate reliability ; Estimation methods ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Generalities, botany, ecology, damages, economic importance ; Image analysis ; Parasitic plants. Weeds ; Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection ; Tillage ; Weed control ; Weeds</subject><ispartof>Weed technology, 2000-07, Vol.14 (3), p.586-590</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2000 The Weed Science Society of America</rights><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3988913$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3988913$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1524376$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Christophe Neeser</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alex R. Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peter Juroszek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mortensen, David A.</creatorcontrib><title>A Comparison of Visual and Photographic Estimates of Weed Biomass and Weed Control</title><title>Weed technology</title><description>The objective of this study was to compare the consistency and accuracy of visually estimated weed biomass and weed control data to data obtained through image analysis. Weed biomass and weed control were evaluated in soybean herbicide efficacy trials conducted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln during 1992 and 1993. Measurements were based on visual estimates and on aerial photographs taken at a height of 3.5 m above the soil surface. Photographs were digitized and classified, producing pixel values for broadleaf weeds, grass weeds, soybean, and soil. Percent weed cover was calculated in relation to the crop canopy, based on the respective number of pixels per image. Visual and photographic ratings of weed biomass and of weed control were not closely correlated. In the first year the visual method discriminated between more treatments than the photographic method, but the opposite occurred in the second year. The photographic method predicted yield more closely than the visual estimates. We concluded that visual estimates were less consistent and more subject to observer bias than measurements obtained with the photographic method.</description><subject>Analytical estimating</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Consistent estimators</subject><subject>Energy crops</subject><subject>Estimate reliability</subject><subject>Estimation methods</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Generalities, botany, ecology, damages, economic importance</subject><subject>Image analysis</subject><subject>Parasitic plants. Weeds</subject><subject>Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection</subject><subject>Tillage</subject><subject>Weed control</subject><subject>Weeds</subject><issn>0890-037X</issn><issn>1550-2740</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9js9LwzAcxYMoOKf_gYccPOih2zf5Jmmjp1rmDxhsiE5BZKRt6jq6piT14H_vnLLTg_c-7_EIGTMYMcXEGBINEWD8dskB4AqYeAeZqOs0my3S-QcfwSib3fADMmBSQsRjAYdksG8dk5MQ1gBMcQ4D8pTSzG064-vgWuoquqjDl2moaUs6X7nefXrTreqCTkJfb0xvwy_0am1Jb2u3MSHs0J2Rubb3rjklR5Vpgj371yF5uZs8Zw_RdHb_mKXTaM0B-4hhyaDQgBWrFGDOSqkQY1BaiDIvBCpe6MQKa7TIYyk5lFppyzXjBjHnOCQXf7udCYVpKm_aog7Lzm9_-u8lk1xgrLbY-R-2Dr3z-xh1kmiG-ANAZ1-I</recordid><startdate>20000701</startdate><enddate>20000701</enddate><creator>Christophe Neeser</creator><creator>Alex R. Martin</creator><creator>Peter Juroszek</creator><creator>Mortensen, David A.</creator><general>Weed Science Society of America</general><scope>IQODW</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000701</creationdate><title>A Comparison of Visual and Photographic Estimates of Weed Biomass and Weed Control</title><author>Christophe Neeser ; Alex R. Martin ; Peter Juroszek ; Mortensen, David A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j203t-13d10c903f1f603b1d5633706944dbc4362c98e4ea94b75520d969e2912a33b23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Analytical estimating</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Consistent estimators</topic><topic>Energy crops</topic><topic>Estimate reliability</topic><topic>Estimation methods</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Generalities, botany, ecology, damages, economic importance</topic><topic>Image analysis</topic><topic>Parasitic plants. Weeds</topic><topic>Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection</topic><topic>Tillage</topic><topic>Weed control</topic><topic>Weeds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Christophe Neeser</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alex R. Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peter Juroszek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mortensen, David A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><jtitle>Weed technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Christophe Neeser</au><au>Alex R. Martin</au><au>Peter Juroszek</au><au>Mortensen, David A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Comparison of Visual and Photographic Estimates of Weed Biomass and Weed Control</atitle><jtitle>Weed technology</jtitle><date>2000-07-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>586</spage><epage>590</epage><pages>586-590</pages><issn>0890-037X</issn><eissn>1550-2740</eissn><coden>WETEE9</coden><abstract>The objective of this study was to compare the consistency and accuracy of visually estimated weed biomass and weed control data to data obtained through image analysis. Weed biomass and weed control were evaluated in soybean herbicide efficacy trials conducted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln during 1992 and 1993. Measurements were based on visual estimates and on aerial photographs taken at a height of 3.5 m above the soil surface. Photographs were digitized and classified, producing pixel values for broadleaf weeds, grass weeds, soybean, and soil. Percent weed cover was calculated in relation to the crop canopy, based on the respective number of pixels per image. Visual and photographic ratings of weed biomass and of weed control were not closely correlated. In the first year the visual method discriminated between more treatments than the photographic method, but the opposite occurred in the second year. The photographic method predicted yield more closely than the visual estimates. We concluded that visual estimates were less consistent and more subject to observer bias than measurements obtained with the photographic method.</abstract><cop>Lawrence, KS</cop><pub>Weed Science Society of America</pub><doi>10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0586:ACOVAP]2.0.CO;2</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0890-037X
ispartof Weed technology, 2000-07, Vol.14 (3), p.586-590
issn 0890-037X
1550-2740
language eng
recordid cdi_pascalfrancis_primary_1524376
source BioOne Complete; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Analytical estimating
Biological and medical sciences
Biomass
Consistent estimators
Energy crops
Estimate reliability
Estimation methods
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Generalities, botany, ecology, damages, economic importance
Image analysis
Parasitic plants. Weeds
Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection
Tillage
Weed control
Weeds
title A Comparison of Visual and Photographic Estimates of Weed Biomass and Weed Control
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T02%3A45%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pasca&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Comparison%20of%20Visual%20and%20Photographic%20Estimates%20of%20Weed%20Biomass%20and%20Weed%20Control&rft.jtitle=Weed%20technology&rft.au=Christophe%20Neeser&rft.date=2000-07-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=586&rft.epage=590&rft.pages=586-590&rft.issn=0890-037X&rft.eissn=1550-2740&rft.coden=WETEE9&rft_id=info:doi/10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014%5B0586:ACOVAP%5D2.0.CO;2&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pasca%3E3988913%3C/jstor_pasca%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3988913&rfr_iscdi=true