Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:05:15.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Detecting Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) with Hyperspectral Remote Sensing Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lawrence W. Lass ,
Donald C. Thill ,
Bahman Shafii  and
Timothy S. Prather
Lawrence W. Lass*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences
Donald C. Thill
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences
Bahman Shafii
Affiliation:
College of Agriculture, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
Timothy S. Prather
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Failure to detect noxious weeds with current survey methods prevents their control and has contributed to their ability to establish and spread in remote range and forest sites. Techniques used in remote sensing can classify plant occurrence on maps, offering a method for surveying invasive species in remote locations and across extensive areas. An imaging hyperspectral spectrometer recorded images on July 19, 1998 in Farragut State Park near Bayview, ID, in the reflected solar region of the electromagnetic spectrum ranging from 440 to 2,543 nm to detect spotted knapweed. The sensor records 128 spectral bands in 12- to 16-nm intervals at a spatial resolution of 5 m. A spectral angle mapper (SAM) algorithm was used to classify the data. Infestations in Idaho with 70 to 100% spotted knapweed cover that were 0.1 ha were detected regardless of the classification angle. However, narrow angles (2 to 8°) did not completely define the extent of the infestation, and the widest angle tested (20°) falsely classified some areas as infested. The overall image error for all classes was lowest (3%) when SAM angles ranged from 10 to 11°. Specific errors for the spotted knapweed class for the 10 to 11° angles showed that omissional and commissional errors were less than 3%. Areas with as little as 1 to 40% spotted knapweed cover were detected with an omissional error of 1% and a commissional error of 6%. Further verification sites were established on August 11, 1998 near Bozeman, MT, using the algorithms developed for Idaho. The omissional error for the Montana sites was 0%, and the commissional error was 10%. The hyperspectral sensor, Probe 1, proved an effective detection tool with the ability to detect spotted knapweed infestations.

Keywords

Spotted knapweedCentaurea maculosa Lam. #3 CENMA syn C. stoebe L. and C. biebersteinii DCHyperspectral sensorimaging spectrometerweed detectionwhiskbroom scannerĈi, commissional errorDGPS, differentially corrected global positioning systemGPS, global positioning system without differential correctionL95, lower bounds expressed as 95% probability intervalÔi, omissional errorSAM, spectral angle mapperU95, upper bounds expressed as 95% probability interval
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 426 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Babbitt, B. 1998. Science in Wildland Weed Management Symposium, BLM: Web page: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fwt/back_issues/1998/Babbitop.pdf.Google Scholar
Bennington, J. L., ed. 1984. Dictionary and Encylopedia of Laboratory Medicine and Technology. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders. 351 p.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. B. 1994. Hyperspectral remote sensing. In Campbell, J. B., ed. Introduction to Remote Sensing. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 399–412.Google Scholar
Card, D. H. 1982. Using known map category marginal frequencies to improve estimates of thematic map accuracy. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 48: 431–439.Google Scholar
Carson, H. W., Lass, L. W., and Callihan, R. H. 1995. Detection of yellow hawkweed with high resolution digital images. Weed Technol. 9: 477–483.Google Scholar
Congalton, R. G. 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 37: 35–46.Google Scholar
Congalton, R. G., Oderwald, R., and Mead, R. A. 1983. Assessing landsat classification accuracy using discrete multivariate analysis statistical techniques. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 49: 1671–1678.Google Scholar
Everitt, J. H., Escobar, D. E., Alaniz, M. A., Davis, M. R., and Richerson, J. V. 1996. Using spatial information technologies to map Chinese tamarisk (Tamarix chinensis) infestations. Weed Sci. 44: 194–201.Google Scholar
Goa, B. C. and Heidebrecht, K. B. 1992. ATREM—Atmospheric Removal Program. ftp://cses.colorado.edu/pub/atrem. Colorado: Center for the Study of Earth from Space (CSES), University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
Goodchild, M. F. and Gopal, S., eds. 1989. Accuracy of Spatial Databases. London: Taylor and Francis. 308 p.Google Scholar
Kruse, F. A., Lefkoff, A. B., Boardman, J. W., Hiebedrecht, K. B., Shapiro, A. T., Barloom, P. J., and Goetz, A. F. H. 1993. The spatial image processing system (SIPS)—interactive visualization and analysis of imaging spectrometer data. Remote Sens. Environ. 44: 145–163.Google Scholar
Lamb, D. W. and Weedon, M. 1998. Evaluating the accuracy of mapping weeds in fallow fields using airborne imaging: Panicum effusum in oilseed rape stubble. Weed Res. 38: 443–451.Google Scholar
Lass, L. W., Carson, H. W., and Callihan, R. H. 1996. Detection of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) with multispectral digital imagery. Weed Technol. 10: 466–474.Google Scholar
Lass, L. W., Shafii, B., Price, W. J., and Thill, D. C. 2000. Assessing agreement in multispectral images of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) with ground truth data using a Bayesian methodology. Weed Technol. 14: 539–544.Google Scholar
Shafii, B., Price, W. J., Lass, L. W., and Thill, D. C. 1998. Assessing variability of agreement measures in remote sensing using a Bayesian approach. Appl. Stat. Agric. 43–54.Google Scholar
Talbott-Roché, C. and Roché, B. F. Jr. 1993. Identification of the knapweeds and starthistles in the Pacific Northwest. A Pacific Northwest Extension Publication. PNW 432. 22 p.Google Scholar