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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Weed technology 2000-07, Vol.14 (3), p.586-590 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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&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 |