Discriminating weeds from processing tomato plants using visible and near-infrared spectroscopy

Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 1907-1911

  Slaughter, D C ^a   Lanini, W T ^b   Giles, D K ^a  

^a Univ of California   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Precision agriculture; Spectroscopy; Tomato; Weed control

Indexed keywords

INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY; LIGHT ABSORPTION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PLANTS (BOTANY);

COLOR-BASED MODELS; HYPERSPECTRAL MODELS; NIGHTSHADE WEEDS; TOMATO FIELDS;

WEED CONTROL;

SPECTROSCOPY; WEED CONTROL;

INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY; LIGHT ABSORPTION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; TOMATOES; WEED CONTROL;

CALIFORNIA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 14844331525     PISSN: 00012351     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Borregaard, T., H. Nielsen, L. Norgaard, and H. Have. 2000. Crop-weed discrimination by line imaging spectroscopy. J. Agric. Eng. Research 75(4): 389-400.
2. Carter, G. A. 1993. Responses of leaf spectral reflectance to plant stress. American J. Botany 80(3): 239-243.
3. Chandler, J. M., and F. T. Cooke. 1992. Economics of cotton losses caused by weeds. In Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control, 85-116. C. G. McWhorter and J. R. Abernathy, eds. Memphis, Tenn.: The Cotton Foundation.
4. El-Faki, M. S., N. Zhang, and D. E. Peterson. 2000a. Factors affecting color-based weed detection. Trans. ASAE 43(4): 1001-1009.
5. El-Faki, M. S., N. Zhang, and D. E. Peterson. 2000b. Weed detection using color machine vision. Trans. ASAE 43(6): 1969-1978.
6. Guyot, G. 1990. Optical properties of vegetation canopies. In Applications of Remote Sensing in Agriculture, 19-43. M. D. Steven and J. A. Clark, eds. London, U.K.: Butterworths.
7. Integrated Pest Management 1998. Integrated Pest Management for Tomatoes. Publication No. 3274. Oakland, Cal.: University of California, Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources.
8. Koger, C. H., D. R. Shaw, K. N. Reddy, and L. M. Bruce. 2004a. Detection of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) by hyperspectral remote sensing: I. Effects of tillage and cover crop residue. Weed Sci. 52(2): 222-229.
9. Koger, C. H., D. R. Shaw, K. N. Reddy, and L. M. Bruce. 2004b. Detection of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) by hyperspectral remote sensing: II. Effects of vegetation ground cover and reflectance properties. Weed Sci. 52(2): 230-235.
10. Lachenbruch, P. A., and M. A. Mickey. 1968. Estimation of error rates in discriminant analysis. Technometrics 10(1): 1-11.
11. Lamm, R. D., D. C. Slaughter, and D. K. Giles. 2002. Precision weed control system for cotton. Trans. ASAE 45(1): 231-238.
12. Lanini, W. T. 1998. Weed control strategies and the impact of their withdrawal on tomato production. In The Importance of Pesticides and Other Pest Management Practices in U.S. Tomato Production, 34-47. National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program. Document No. 1-CA-98. Washington, D.C.: USDA.
13. Lee, W. S. 1998. Robotic weed control system for tomatoes. PhD diss. Davis, Cal.: University of California, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering.
14. Lee, W. S., D. C. Slaughter, and D. K. Giles. 1999. Robotic weed control system for tomatoes. Precision Agric. 1(1): 95-113.
15. MacDonald, R. B., and F. G. Hall. 1980. Global crop forecasting. Science 208(4445): 670-679.
16. Malacara, D. 2002. Color Vision and Colorimetry Theory and Applications. Bellingham, Wash.: Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineering.
17. McGiffen, M. E., Jr., J. B. Masiunas, and J. D. Hesketh. 1992. Competition for light between tomatoes and nightshades (Solanum nigrum or S. ptycanthum). Weed Sci. 40(2): 220-226.
18. Miyama, S. 1999. Competition between tomato and barnyardgrass in relation to nitrogen fertilizer source. MS thesis. Davis, Cal.: University of California, Department of Vegetable Crops.
19. Monaco, T. J., A. S. Grayson, and D. C. Sanders. 1981. Influence of four weed species on the growth, yield, and quality of direct-seeded tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 29(4): 394-397.
20. Moran, M. S., Y. Inoue, and E. M. Barnes. 1997. Opportunities and limitations for image-based remote sensing in precision crop management. Remote Sens. Environ. 61(3): 319-346.
21. PTAB. 2002. Final 2002 tonnage and variety report. Davis, Calif.: Processing Tomato Advisory Board.
22. SAS. 1999. SAS OnlineDoc, Version 8. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute, Inc.
23. Tian. L., D. C. Slaughter, and R. F. Norris. 1997. Outdoor field machine identification of tomato seedlings for automated weed control. Trans. ASAE 40(6): 1761-1768.
24. Vrindts, E., J. De Baerdemeaeker, and H. Ramon. 2002. Weed detection using canopy reflection. Precision Agric. 3(1): 63-80.
25. Weaver, S. E., and C. S. Tan. 1987. Critical period of weed interference in field-seeded tomatoes and its relation to water stress and shading. Canadian J. Plant Sci. 67(2): 575-583.
26. Williams, P. C., and K. H. Norris. 1987. Near-Infrared Technology in the Agricultural and Food Industries. St. Paul, Minn.: American. Association of Cereal Chemists.
27. Zwiggelaar, R. 1998. A review of spectral properties of plants and their potential use for crop/weed discrimination in row-crops. Crop Protection 17(3): 189-206.