Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:57:59.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Detecting Late-Season Weed Infestations in Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Clifford H. Koger ,
David R. Shaw ,
Clarence E. Watson  and
Krishna N. Reddy
Clifford H. Koger*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, 141 Experiment Station Road, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
David R. Shaw
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Forestry and Extension Service, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Clarence E. Watson
Affiliation:
Mississippi Agriculture, Forestry and Extension Service, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Krishna N. Reddy
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, 141 Experiment Station Road, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1999 at Stoneville, MS, to determine the potential of multispectral imagery for late-season discrimination of weed-infested and weed-free soybean. Plant canopy composition for soybean and weeds was estimated after soybean or weed canopy closure. Weed canopy estimates ranged from 30 to 36% for all weed-infested soybean plots, and weeds present were browntop millet, barnyardgrass, and large crabgrass. In each experiment, data were collected for the green, red, and near-infrared (NIR) spectrums four times after canopy closure. The red and NIR bands were used to develop a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) for each plot, and all spectral bands and NDVI were used as classification features to discriminate between weed-infested and weed-free soybean. Spectral response for all bands and NDVI were often higher in weed-infested soybean than in weed-free soybean. Weed infestations were discriminated from weed-free soybean with at least 90% accuracy. Discriminant analysis models formed from one image were 78 to 90% accurate in discriminating weed infestations for other images obtained from the same and other experiments. Multispectral imagery has the potential for discriminating late-season weed infestations across a range of crop growth stages by using discriminant models developed from other imagery data sets.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. #3 ECHCGbrowntop millet, Brachiaria ramosa (L.) Stapf # PANRAlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSAsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrDiscriminant analysismultispectralremote sensingnormalized difference vegetation indexweed detectionDGPS, differential global positioning systemexp., experimentNDVI, normalized difference vegetation indexNIR, near infraredPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 696 - 704
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

Balough, G. R. and Bookhout, T. A. 1989. Remote detection and measurement of purple loosestrife stands. Wildl. Soc. Bull 17:66–67.Google Scholar
Banks, P. A., Santlemann, P. W., and Tucker, B. B. 1976. Influence of long-term soil fertility treatments on weed species in winter wheat. Agron. J. 68:825–827.Google Scholar
Barrentine, W. L. 1974. Common cocklebur competition in soybeans. Weed Sci. 22:600–603.Google Scholar
Bausch, W. C. 1993. Soil background effects on reflectance-based crop coefficients for corn. Remote Sens. Environ 46:213–222.Google Scholar
Bloomberg, J. R., Kirkpatrick, B. L., and Wax, L. M. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30:507–513.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Hoveland, C. S., and Harris, M. C. 1975. Response of weeds to soil pH. Weed Sci. 23:473–477.Google Scholar
Christensen, S., Walter, A. M., and Heisel, T. 1999. The patch treatment of weeds in cereals. in Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection conference; Farnham, U.K. Pp. 591–600.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. D. and Woolcock, J. L. 1987. Spatial dynamics of weeds: an overview. in Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection conference; Farnham, U.K. Pp. 613–618.Google Scholar
Daughtry, C. S. T., McMurtrey, J. E. III, Chappelle, E. W., Dulaney, W. P., Irons, J. R., and Satterwhite, M. B. 1995. Potential for discriminating crop residues from soil by reflectance and fluorescence. Agron. J. 87:165–171.Google Scholar
Everitt, J. H., Alaniz, M. A., Escobar, D. E., and Davis, M. R. 1992. Using remote sensing to distinguish common (Isocoma coronopifolia) and Drummond goldenweed (Isocoma drummondii). Weed Sci. 40:621–628.Google Scholar
Everitt, J. H., Anderson, G. L., Escobar, D. E., Davis, M. R., Spencer, N. R., and Andrascik, R. J. 1995. Use of remote sensing for detection and mapping of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Technol. 9:599–609.Google Scholar
Everitt, J. H., Escobar, D. E., Alaniz, M. A., and Davis, M. R. 1991. Light reflectance characteristics and video remote sensing of pricklypear. J. Range Manag 44:587–592.Google Scholar
Everitt, J. H., Escobar, D. E., Alaniz, M. A., Davis, M. R., and Richardson, J. V. 1996. Using spatial information technologies to map Chinese tamarisk (Tamarix chinensis) infestations. Weed Sci. 44:194–201.Google Scholar
Everitt, J. H., Escobar, D. E., Villarreal, R., Alaniz, M. A., and Davis, M. R. 1993. Integration of airborne video, global positioning system and geographical information system technologies for detecting and mapping two woody legumes on rangelands. Weed Technol. 7:981–987.Google Scholar
Felton, W. L., Doss, A. F., Nash, P. G., and McCloy, K. R. 1991. To selectively spot spray weeds. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Symp 11:427–432.Google Scholar
Franz, E., Gebhardt, M. R., and Unklesbay, K. B. 1991. The use of local spectral properties of leaves as an aid for identifying weed seedlings in digital images. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng 34:682–687.Google Scholar
Goudy, H. J., Bennet, K. E., and Tardif, F. Q. 2001. Evaluation of site-specific weed management using a direct-injection sprayer. Weed Sci. 49:359–366.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. 1998. Applied Multivariate Methods for Data Analysis. 1st ed. Pacific Grove, CA: International Thomson. Pp. 254–255.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Martin, A. R. 1995. A simulation of herbicide use based on weed spatial distribution. Weed Res. 35:197–205.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1989. Influence of planting date on growth of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli). Weed Sci. 37:557–561.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
Medlin, C. R., Shaw, D. R., Cox, M. S., Gerard, P. D., Abshire, M. J., and Wardlaw, M. C. 2001. Using soil parameters to predict weed infestations in soybean. Weed Sci. 49:367–374.Google Scholar
Medlin, C. R., Shaw, D. R., Gerard, P. D., and Lamastus, F. E. 2000. Using remote sensing to detect weed infestations in Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:393–398.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M., Nixon, P. R., and Richardson, A. J. 1985. Light reflectance and remote sensing of weeds in agronomic and horticulture crops. Weed Sci. 33:569–581.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Dielman, J. A., and Johnson, G. A. 1998. Weed Spatial Variation and Weed Management. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor. Pp. 293–309.Google Scholar
Peters, A. J., Reed, B. C., Eve, M. D., and McDaniel, K. C. 1992. Remote sensing of broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae) with NOAA-10 spectral image processing. Weed Technol. 6:1015–1020.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. J., Menges, R. M., and Nixon, P. R. 1985. Distinguishing weed from crop plants using video remote sensing. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 51:1785–1790.Google Scholar
Rouse, J. W., Haas, R. H., Schell, J. A., and Deering, D. W. 1973. Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. in Rouse, J. W. and Ritter, S., eds. Proceedings of the Earth Resources Technology Satellite Symposium, NASA SP-351; Washington, DC. Pp. 309–317.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657–663.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. F., Stafford, J. V., and Miller, P. C. H. 1991. Potential for automatic weed detection and selective herbicide application. Crop Prot 10:254–259.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. K., Fawcett, R. H., Dent, J. B., and Perkins, T. J. 1990. Spatial weed distribution and economic thresholds for weed control. Crop Prot 9:337–342.Google Scholar
Vangessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2000. Optimum glyphosate timing with or without residual herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) under full-season conventional tillage. Weed Technol. 14:140–149.Google Scholar
Vangessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2001. Glyphosate in full-season no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean: role of preplant applications and residual herbicides. Weed Technol. 15:714–724.Google Scholar
Van Groenendael, J. M. 1988. Patchy distribution of weeds and some implications for modeling population dynamics: a short literature review. Weed Res. 28:437–441.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Hamill, A. S. 1985. Effects of soil pH on competitive ability and leaf nutrient content of corn (Zea mays L.) and three weed species. Weed Sci. 33:447–451.Google Scholar
Wiles, L. J., Wilkerson, G. G., and Gold, H. J. 1992. Value of information about weed distributions for improving postemergence control decisions. Crop Prot 11:547–553.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. J. and Brain, P. 1991. Long-term stability of distribution of Alopercurus myosuroides Huds. within cereal fields. Weed Res. 31:367–373.Google Scholar