Skip to content

Posts from the ‘SRS NDVI sensor’ Category

IoT Technologies for Irrigation Water Management (Part 2)

Dr. Yossi Osroosh, Precision Ag Engineer in the Department of Biological Systems Engineering at Washington State University, continues (see part 1) to discuss the strengths and limitations of  IoT technologies for irrigation water management.

Informed irrigation decisions require real-time data from networks of soil and weather sensors at desired resolution and a reasonable cost.

LoRaWAN (a vendor-managed solution see part 1) is ideal for monitoring applications where sensors need to send data only a couple of times per day with very high battery life at very low cost. Cellular IoT, on the other hand, works best for agricultural applications where sensors are required to send data more frequently and irrigation valves need to be turned on/off. Low-Power Wide-Area Networking (LPWAN) technologies need gateways or base stations for functioning. The gateway uploads data to a cloud server through traditional cellular networks like 4G. Symphony Link has an architecture very similar to LoRaWAN with higher degree of reliability appropriate for industrial applications. The power budget of LTE Cat-M1 9 (a network operator LPWAN) is 30% higher per bit than technologies like SigFox or LoRaWAN, which means more expensive batteries are required. Some IoT technologies like LoRa and SigFox only support uplink suited for monitoring while cellular IoT allows for both monitoring and control. LTE-M is a better option for agricultural sensor applications where more data usage is expected.

NB-IoT is more popular in EU and China and LTE Cat-M1 in the U.S. and Japan. T-Mobile is planning to deploy NB-IoT network in the U.S. by mid-2018 following a pilot project in Las Vegas. Verizon and AT&T launched LTE Cat-M1 networks last year and their IoT-specific data plans are available for purchase. Verizon and AT&T IoT networks cover a much greater area than LoRa or Sigfox. An IoT device can be connected to AT&T’s network for close to $1.00 per month, and to Verizon’s for as low as $2 per month for 1MB of data. A typical sensor message generally falls into 10-200 bytes range. With the overhead associated with protocols to send the data to the cloud, this may reach to 1KB. This can be used as a general guide to determine how much data to buy from a network operator.

Studies show there is a potential for over 50% water savings using sensor-based irrigation scheduling methods.

What the future holds

Many startup companies are currently focused on the software aspect of IoT, and their products lack the sensor technology. The main problem they have is that developing good sensors is hard. Most of these companies will fail before batteries of their sensors die. Few will survive or prevail in the very competitive IoT market. Larger companies who own sensor technologies are more concerned with the compatibility and interoperability of these IoT technologies and will be hesitant to adopt them until they have a clear picture. It is going to take time to see both IoT and accurate soil/plant sensors in one package in the market.  

With the rapid growth of IoT in other areas, there will be an opportunity to evaluate different IoT technologies before adopting them in agriculture. As a company, you may be forced to choose specific IoT technology. Growers and consultants should not worry about what solution is employed to transfer data from their field to the cloud and to their computer or smart phones, as long as quality data is collected and costs and services are reasonable. Currently, some companies are using traditional cellular networks. It is highly likely that they will finally switch to cellular IoT like LTE Cat-M1. This, however, may potentially increase the costs in some designs due to the higher cost of cellular IoT data plans.

Get more info on applied environmental research in our

How to Get More From Your NDVI Sensor (Part 3)

In the conclusion of our three-part series on improving NDVI sensor data (see part 2), we discuss how to correct for limitations which occur in high leaf area index (LAI) conditions.

NDVI Sensor

Where there’s a large amount of vegetation, NDVI tends to saturate.

NDVI Limitations – High LAI

NDVI is useful in the midrange of LAI’s as long as you don’t have strong soil effects, but as you approach an LAI above 4, you lose sensitivity. In figure 6, loss of sensitivity is primarily due to a saturation in the red band. Measurements were taken in a wheat canopy and a maize canopy. The near infrared reflectance is sensitive across the entire spectrum of the wheat and maize canopies, but the red saturates relatively quickly. Where the red starts to saturate is where the NDVI starts to saturate.

NDVI Sensor

Figure 6: Gitelson (2004) J. Plant Phys

Note: NDVI saturates at high LAI’s, however, if your purpose is to get at the fractional interception of light, NDVI tends not to have the saturation issue. In Figure 7, Fpar or the fractional interception of light of photosynthetically radiation is nearly complete far before NDVI saturates. This is because canopies are efficient at intercepting light, and once we get to an LAI of about 4, most of the light has been intercepted or absorbed by the canopy.  Thus, incremental increases in LAI don’t significantly affect the FPar variable.

NDVI Sensor

Figure 7: Fractional interception of light is near complete at an LAI around 4. (Gamon et al. (1995) Eco. Apps)

Solution 3- WDRVI

One solution for the NDVI saturation issue is called the Wide Dynamic Range Vegetation Index (WDRVI). It’s formulation is similar to NDVI, except for a weighting coefficient that can be used to reduce the disparity between the contribution of the near infrared and red reflectance.  

NDVI Sensor

In the WDRVI, a is multiplied by the near infrared reflectance to reduce its value and bring it closer to the red reflectance value. In doing so, it balances out the red and the near infrared contribution to the vegetation index.

NDVI Sensor

Figure 8: (Gitelson (2004) J. Plant Phys)

a can range anywhere from 0 to 1. Figure 8 shows that as we use a smaller value of a, we get an increasing linear response of the wide dynamic vegetation index to LAI.

The only drawback of the WDRVI is that the selection of a is subjective. It’s something that you experiment on your own until you find a value for a that is optimal for your solution.  People tend to err on the side of a very low value simply because they’ll get closer and closer to a linear response to LAI as a decreases.

Solution 4 – Enhanced Vegetation Index

The enhanced vegetation index (EVI) was designed to enhance sensitivity in high biomass ecosystems, but it also attempts to reduce atmospheric influences.  This was a vegetation index created for the purposes of a satellite based platform. There’s a lot of atmosphere to look through from a satellite to the ground, and sometimes the aerosols in the atmosphere affect the reflectances in the red and the near infrared regions causing spurious observations.  The EVI also tries to reduce sensitivity of the index to soil. Thus the EVI is a kind of solution to both extremes.

NDVI Sensor

In the EVI equation, the two major inputs are near infrared and red reflectances.  C1 , C2, and L are all parameters that can be estimated, but the blue band is something that has to be measured. Most NDVI sensors are two band sensors, so you don’t have that information in the blue.  Plus, with satellites, the blue band is relatively noisy and doesn’t always have the best quality data, thus EVI has limited value.

Solution 6: EVI2 (Enhanced Vegetation Index 2)

Those problems led a scientist named Jiang to come up with a solution.  Jiang observed quite a bit of autocorrelation between the red band and the blue band, so he decided to try and formulate EVI without the blue band in what he called the EVI2 (Enhanced Vegetation Index 2).  if you’re interested in the mathematics, we encourage you to go read his paper, but here we give you the equation in case you’re interested in using it.

NDVI Sensor

Figure 9

When Jiang calculated his EVI2 and compared it to the traditional EVI (Figure 9), it was nearly a one to one relationship. For all intents and purposes EVI2 was equivalent to EVI.  Since this avoids blue band, it offers some exciting possibilities as it reduces to just using the two inputs of NIR and red bands to calculate NDVI.

NDVI Sensor Summary

NDVI measurements have considerable value, and though there are extremes where NDVI performs poorly, even in these cases there are several solutions.  These solutions all use the near infrared and the red bands, so you can take an NDVI sensor, obtain the raw values of NIR and red reflectances and reformulate them in one of these indices (there are several other indices available that we haven’t covered). So if you’re in a system with extremely high or low LAI, try to determine how near infrared and red bands can be used in some type of vegetation index to allow you to research your specific application.

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Get More From Your NDVI Sensor (Part 2)

Last week we discussed Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) sampling across a range of scales both in space and in time, from satellites sampling the entire earth’s surface to handheld small sensors that measure individual plants or even leaves (see part 1).  This week, learn about NDVI applications, limitations, and how to correct for those limitations.

NDVI Sensor

Limitations of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index tend to occur at the extremes of the spectrum.

NDVI Sensor

NDVI Applications

People use NDVI to infer things like leaf area index (LAI) or fractional light interception (FPAR) of a canopy.  Some scientists also associate NDVI with biomass or yield of a crop. People also use NDVI to get a sense of phenology (general temporal patterns of greenness), as well as where vegetation occurs or how much vegetation is in a particular location.

In Figure 4, you can see how the reflectance spectrum at a given canopy LAI changes with leaf area index, decreasing in the visible range while increasing in the near infrared.

NDVI Sensor

Figure 4

At very low LAI’s, the reflectance spectrum is relatively undifferentiated between red and NIR (black line), but when LAI is high, there’s a strong absorption of red light by chlorophyll with a strong reflectance in the NIR. If fact, as LAI increases, there’s an ever-increasing reflectance in the near infrared around 800 nm.

NDVI Limitations

Limitations of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index tend to occur at the extremes of the spectrum. Any time there’s very low vegetation cover (majority of the scene is soil), NDVI will be sensitive to that soil. This can confound measurements.  On the other extreme, where there’s a large amount of vegetation, NDVI tends to saturate. Notice the negligible difference between spectra at an leaf area index (LAI) of 3 (purple) versus 6 (green). Indeed, in a tropical forest, NDVI will not be sensitive to small changes in the LAI because LAI is already very high.  However, several solutions exist.

Solution 1-Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index

Figure 5 shows the results of a study taking spectral measurements of different vegetation indices across a transect of bare soil.  Moving from dry clay loam to wet clay loam, we see a very strong response of NDVI due to the wetness of the soil; undesirable if we’re measuring vegetation.  We’re not interested in an index that’s sensitive to changes in soil or soil moisture. However, there are a few other indices plotted in figure 5 with much lower sensitivities to variations in the soil across the transect.

NDVI Sensor

Figure 5: Qi et al. (1994) Rem. Sens. Env.

The first one of those indices is the Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI). The equation for SAVI is similar to NDVI. It incorporates the same two bands as the NDVI–the near infrared and the red.

NDVI Senso

Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index (Huete (1988) Rem. Sens. Env.)

The only thing that’s different, is the L parameter.  L is a soil adjustment factor with values that range anywhere from 0 to 1.  When vegetation cover is 100%, L is 0 because there’s no need for a soil background adjustment. However, when vegetation cover is very low, that L parameter will approach one. Because it is difficult to measure exactly how much vegetation cover you have without using NDVI, we can modify the NDVI so it’s not sensitive to soil by guessing beforehand what L should be. It’s common practice to set L to an intermediate value of 0.5.   You can see in Figure 5 the Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index or SAVI has a much lower sensitivity to the soil background.

Solution 2- Modified SAVI

The next vegetation index is the modified SAVI (MSAVI). The SAVI equation contains an L parameter that we have to estimate–not an accurate way of handling things.  So a scientist named Key developed a universal optimum for L. We won’t get into the math, but he was able to simplify the SAVI equation to where there’s no longer a need for the L parameter, and the only inputs required are the reflectances in the near infrared and the red.  

NDVI Sensor

Modified SAVI (Qi et al. (1994) Rem. Sens. Env.)

This was a pretty significant advance as it circumvented the need to estimate or independently measure L. When Key compared SAVI to MSAVI, there was virtually no difference between the two indices in terms of their sensitivity to the amount of vegetation and their response to the soil background.

NDVI Sensor

MSAVI compares well with SAVI in terms of dynamic range and noise level (Qi et al. (1994) Rem. Sens. Env.)

Next week:  Learn about solutions for high LAI.

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Get More From Your NDVI Sensor

Modern technology has made it possible to sample Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) across a range of scales both in space and in time, from satellites sampling the entire earth’s surface to handheld small sensors that measure individual plants or even leaves.

NDVI

Figure 1: NDVI is sensitive to the amount of vegetation cover that is present across the earth’s surface.

NDVI – Global

The broadest way to think of NDVI is data obtained from an earth orbiting satellite. In the figure above, you can see highly vegetated areas that have high NDVI values represented by dark green colors across the globe.  Conversely, areas of low vegetation have low NDVI values, which look brown.  NDVI is sensitive to the amount of vegetation cover that is present across the earth’s surface.

NDVI – Local

How might NDVI be useful at the plot level? Figure 2 below shows a successional gradient where time zero is a bare patch of soil, or a few forbs or annual grasses. If we leave that patch of ground for enough time, the vegetation will change: shrubs may take over from grasses and eventually we might see a forest. Across a large area, we may also move from grasslands to forest. In an agricultural system, there is yearly turnover of vegetation–from bare field to plant emergence, maturity, and senescence. This cycle repeats itself every year.  Within these growth cycles NDVI helps to quantify the the canopy growth that occurs over time as well as the spatial dynamics that occur across landscapes.

NDVI

Figure 2: Seasonal growth plotted against spatiotemporal variation

Spectral Reflectance Data

So where does NDVI come from? In Figure 3, the x-axis plots wavelength of light within the electromagnetic spectrum; 450 to 950 nm covers both the visible region and a portion of the near infrared. On the y-axis is percent reflectance.  This is a typical reflectance spectrum from green vegetation.

NDVI

Figure 3: Spectral Reflectance Data. (Figure and Images: landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov)

The green hyperspectral line is what we would expect to get from a spectral radiometer.  Reflectance is typically low in the blue region, higher in the green region, and lower in the red region. It shifts dramatically as we cross from the visible to the near infrared. The two vertical bars labeled NDVI give you an idea of where a typical NDVI sensor measures within the spectrum.  One band is in the red region and the other is in the near infrared region.  

NDVI capitalizes on the large difference between the visible region and the near infrared portion of the spectrum. Healthy, growing plants reflect near infrared strongly.  The two images on the right of the figure above are of the same area.  The top image is displayed in true color, or three bands–blue, green and red. The image below is a false color infrared image.  The three bands displayed are blue, green, and in place of red, we used the near infrared. The bright red color indicates a lot of near infrared reflectance which is typical of green or healthy vegetation.

The reason NDVI is formulated with red and near infrared is because red keys in on chlorophyll absorption, and near infrared is sensitive to canopy structure and the internal cellular structure of leaves.  As we add leaves to a canopy, there’s more chlorophyll and structural complexities, thus we can expect decreasing amounts of red reflectance and higher amounts of near infrared reflectance.

How Do We Calculate the NDVI?

NDVI

The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index takes into account the amount of near infrared (NIR) reflected by plants. It is calculated by dividing the difference between the reflectances (Rho) in the near infrared and red by the sum of the two.  NDVI values typically range between negative one (surface water) and one (full, vibrant canopy). Low values (0.1 – 0.4) indicate sparse canopies, while higher values (0.7 – 0.9) suggest full, active canopies.  

The way we calculate the percent reflectance is to quantify both the upwelling radiation (the radiation that’s striking the canopy and then reflected back toward our sensor) as well as the total amount of radiation that’s downwelling (from the sky) on a canopy.  The ratio of those two give us percent reflectance in each of the bands.

Next Week: Learn about NDVI applications, limitations, and how to correct for those limitations.

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Measuring NDVI in a Greenhouse Presents Challenges (Part 2)

University of Georgia researcher, Shuyang Zhen, wanted to find out if she could optimize greenhouse irrigation with reference evapotranspiration calculated from environmental factors and a crop coefficient, using NDVI measurements to adjust for canopy size (see part 1). Learn the results of the experiment and how fast growth and flowering caused problems with the NDVI measurement.

setup-1

Shuyang’s experimental setup.

Fast Growth Causes Problems

Shuyang says because the plants grew so large, the canopy filled in beyond what the sensor could see.  That meant there was additional leaf area that participated in vapor loss which wasn’t identified by the NDVI sensor.  As the canopies approached moderate-to-high canopy densities, Shuyang observed that the NDVI readings became less responsive to increases in canopy size. To work around this problem, Shuyang tried to calculate a vegetation index called the Wide Dynamic Range Vegetation index with the spectral reflectance outputs of the two wavebands measured by the NDVI sensor. Shuyang says, “This index was supposed to improve the sensitivity at higher canopy density, so I transformed all my data and was surprised that it actually improved the sensitivity when the canopy density was lower.  But at a higher canopy density it wasn’t as effective.”

setup-2

The red flowers reflected a lot of red light compared to the leaves, which confused the NDVI measurement.

Plant flowering also caused problems with the NDVI measurement.   Shuyang explains, “We had one cultivar of petunia with red flowers which formed on top of the canopy. The red flowers reflected a lot of red light compared to the leaves, which confused the NDVI measurement.  The NDVI value gradually decreased when the plants started to flower. There was no way I could get around that issue, so in some of the replicates, I removed the flowers, and in some I kept the flowers so I could compare the different responses and characterize why it happened.”

NDVI

The NDVI was very sensitive to the increase in crop size when the canopy was relatively small, but when you reach a certain canopy size and the canopy closure was nearly complete, then the sensitivity decreased.

Summary and Future Studies

During the early stages of growth, the research team saw a linear relationship between NDVI and crop coefficient. However, when the crop coefficient reached higher values, the response leveled off.  Shuyang says, “The response failed to change with further increases in the crop coefficient. The NDVI was very sensitive to the increase in crop size when the canopy was relatively small, but when you reach a certain canopy size and the canopy closure was nearly complete, then the sensitivity decreased.”  

NDVI

Lack of NDVI sensitivity during canopy closure and flowering translated to a problem with under-irrigation,

Shuyang adds that the lack of NDVI sensitivity during canopy closure and flowering translated to a problem with under-irrigation, so the team is thinking about developing separate models for different canopy stages.  She explains, “When the canopy reaches high canopy closure we may have to add an additional coefficient to compensate for that underestimation, but it’s difficult to evaluate what kind of coefficient we should use without more data. We need to do more studies to get an idea of what kind of adjustments will make the prediction more precise.”

Learn more about Shuyang’s work on the University of Georgia horticulture blog.

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Measuring NDVI in a Greenhouse Presents Challenges

Greenhouse growers need irrigation strategies to maintain high plant quality, but it’s difficult to obtain quantitative information on exactly how much water will produce the highest-quality growth.

Greenhouse

Greenhouse plant canopies are highly variable.

Estimating irrigation needs by using reference evapotranspiration calculated from environmental factors and a crop coefficient is standard for controlling field crop irrigation, but in a greenhouse this method can be challenging.  Greenhouse plant canopies are highly variable, and there’s limited information on the crop coefficient values for ornamental crops.  

greenhouse

Researchers used a sensor-controlled automated irrigation system with soil moisture sensors.

Measuring Crop Size

University of Georgia researcher, Shuyang Zhen, wanted to find out if she could solve this problem for greenhouse growers using NDVI measurements to adjust for canopy size. In a greenhouse setting, she and her team planted four types of fast growing herbaceous plants in small containers on top of greenhouse benches.  They set up a small weather station to monitor environmental parameters and used that data to calculate reference evapotranspiration.  

greenhouse

NDVI measurements are a non-destructive, continuous monitoring method to get information as to how big a crop is.

Using a sensor-controlled automated irrigation system with soil moisture sensors, the team determined the amount of water the plants used, which allowed them to calculate a crop coefficient on a daily basis.  They then used NDVI measurements to monitor crop size.  Shuyang says, “It’s easy to monitor environmental factors such as light, temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed, but it’s much harder to determine how big the crop is because many methods are destructive and time-consuming.  We chose NDVI measurements as a non-destructive, continuous monitoring method to get information as to how big our crop was. We were specifically interested in looking at how NDVI changes with the crop coefficient and how those two parameters correlate with each other.”

greenhouse

Some species were more upward growing and some more sprawling.

Shuyang mounted multiple NDVI sensors on top of the benches, approximately four feet from the plants. Each sensor had a field of view of about .6 square meters and tracked the changes in plant size and NDVI values for over 8 weeks.  Shuyang says, “Each species had different growth habits.  Some species were more upward growing and some more sprawling. They also had different leaf chlorophyll content. Over the course of my study, three species reached reproductive stages, producing flowers. All of these factors had an effect on the NDVI measurements.”

Next week: Learn the results of the experiment and how fast growth and flowering caused problems with the measurement.

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Water Content helps Turf Growers find Water/Nutrient Balance

Many athletes don’t like artificial turf. They say it’s hot, uncomfortable to run on, causes burns when you slide or fall on it, and changes the way a ball moves.  Professional women’s soccer players even started a lawsuit over FIFA’s decision to use artificial turf in the 2015 Women’s World Cup.

water content

Soccer players on natural turf.

Some universities–including Brigham Young University– have responded to athlete concerns by using natural turf fields for practice and in their stadiums. But the challenge is to develop plants and management practices for natural turf that help it stand up to frequent use and allow it to perform well even during the difficult fall months. It’s a perfect research opportunity.

BYU turf professor and manager of BYU sports turf, Bryan Hopkins and his colleagues in the Plant and Wildlife Department, have been able to set up a new state-of-the-art facility to study plants and soil in both greenhouse and natural conditions. The facility includes a large section of residential and stadium turf grass.  

Before Soil Sensors

Initially, BYU maintained the turf farm grass on a standard, timer-based irrigation control system, but over time they realized that understanding the performance of their turf relative to moisture content and nutrient load is crucial. Last year during Memorial Day weekend their turf farm irrigation system stopped working when no one was around to notice.  During those four days temperatures rose to 40 C (100 F), and the grass in the field slipped into dormancy due to heat stress. In response, Dr. Hopkins began imagining a system of soil moisture sensors to constantly monitor the performance of the turf grass.  He wanted not only to make sure the turf never died but also to really understand the elements of stress so they could do a better job growing healthy turf.

Sensors Give a Clear Picture

Soon afterward, a team of scientists, including fellow professor Dr. Neil Hansen, installed volumetric water content (VWC) and matric potential sensors at two different sites: one in the sports turf and one in a residential turf plot.  Each plot had two installations of sensors at 6 cm and 15 cm, along with VWC only at 25 cm, to measure water moving beyond the root zone. Combining these measurements, they could clearly see when the grass was reaching stress conditions and how quickly the turf went from the beginning of stress (in terms of water content and time) to permanent wilting point. In addition, ancillary measurements of temperature and electrical conductivity provide an opportunity for modeling surface and root zone temperature as well as fertilizer concentration dynamics.

water content

Installing water content sensors at the BYU turf farm.

Errors Revealed

What the researchers learned was that they were using too much water. Dr. Colin Campbell, a METER research scientist who worked with BYU on sensor installation, comments, “We found in the first year that the plants never got stressed at all.  So this year, the researchers allowed the water potential (WP) at 6 cm to drop into the stress range (~ -500 kPa) while observing WP at 15 cm (-50 kPa to -60 kPa). We hope this approach will reduce irrigation inputs while creating some stress in the grass in order to push the roots deeper.”

What’s happening with the water?

Dr. Campbell’s favorite part of the sensor data was the detailed picture it gave of what was happening with the water in the sandy soil (Figure 1). He says, “Most people believe that they have an intuitive feel for water availability in soil.  If we were only using water content sensors, seeing a typical value of 20% would lead us to believe we were comfortably in the middle of the plant available range (A).  But in this study, using our co-located soil water content and soil water potential sensors, the data showed readings over 15% VWC were too wet to affect the WP (B). However, once WP visibly changed, it quickly moved toward critical stress levels (C, -1500 kPa is permanent wilting point); it only took two days for the water potential to change from -8 kPa to -1000 kPa.  A subsequent dry period (D) shows similar behavior, but this time the 15 cm WP drops to near -1000 kPa.”

water content

Figure 1

The plant stress levels were reached surprisingly quickly in this soil because its sand composition has a lot of large pores and not very many small ones (Figure 2).  Campbell explains, “The large pores store water that is not held tightly due to low surface area, so the water is freely available.  But around 10% VWC all the water from the large pores is used up.  As the soil dries beyond that, the water is held tightly in small pores and becomes increasingly unavailable.  This is clear in the moisture release curve.  We see almost no change in water potential as the soil dried to 16% VWC, but from 10% down to 7%, the water potential reached permanent wilting point, and it happened in just over a day.”

water content

Figure 2

What the Future Holds:

The researchers wanted to make sure that if they went down to certain stress levels, they wouldn’t cause harm to the plants, so this year, they installed a weather station to monitor evapotranspiration and calculate irrigation application rates.  They also began measuring spectral reflectance to monitor changes in leaf area (NDVI) and photosynthesis (PRI).  This will enable them to see the impact on the plants as the turf is drying down.  “In the future,” says Campbell, “we hope that both commercial and residential turf growers will be able to more effectively control their irrigation and nutrients based on what we find in this study.”

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

The Potential of Drones in Research

Someday soon,  multi-rotors will execute pre-programmed flight paths over several hundred research plots collecting daily data and sending it back to a computer while researchers sip their morning coffee.  Researchers and growers won’t need to know anything about flying: the drones will fly themselves.  This is the dream.

 

One UAV (unmanned air vehicle) industry leader at the above drone demonstration commented, The truth is that this is where agriculture (and research) is going, and I don’t mean ‘Tomorrowland’ going–I mean it’s pretty much there.  The only thing that’s holding us back is a permit from the FAA for autonomy, and that’s because the FAA is slowly backing into this UAV piece because we have the busiest general aviation sky in the world. But really, what you should have in your mind is multiple units operating with a single operator in a control vehicle.”  The above UAV was extensively tested in California’s NAPA valley with results soon to be published online.

In this blog, a METER scientist and an instrumentation engineer give their perspectives on what needs to happen before drones reach their full research potential.  

drones

Drone Hexacopter

What are the advantages of drones for researchers?

Dr. Colin Campbell, research scientist-

One of the biggest challenges of work in the field is variability: low spots, high spots, sandy soil, clay soil, hard pans beneath the surface in some areas and not in others.  This results in highly variable performance in crops.  In addition to that, even when you have good homogeneity in a field, you might have differences due to irrigation or rainfall.  If we want to improve agriculture, one thing that we have to do is be able to come out with better tools to be able to visualize the field in more than a single dimension.  In order to do this right now, students go out and take plant measurements all day, every day, all summer long.  The advantage of a drone is that you could do flyovers of a field, monitoring the traits that you’re interested in using reflectance indices that would normally take days of work.

What are the obstacles to progress?

Greg Kelley, mechanical engineer, and drone hobbyist-   

Recently, the FAA has come out with a set of guidelines for the industrial use of drones:  flying machines have to stay under a certain ceiling (500 ft; 150 m), and they have to be flown in the line of sight of the operator.  The naive thing about those policies is: how much control does the operator have over the drone anyway?  It used to be that with your remote control, you were moving the control surfaces (flaps, rudder, etc) on the aircraft, but this is changing.  The onboard computer performs things like holding a stable altitude, maintaining a GPS location, or auto-stabilization (it keeps the aircraft level, even when a gust of wind comes).  Those are degrees of control that have been taken away from the operator. Thus, according to the level of automation that the operator has built into the system, he may not be in direct control at all times. In fact, these machines are being developed so that they can fly themselves. From my perspective, the FAA regulations are going to have to evolve along with the automation of drones in order to allow the development of this technology in an appropriate way.

drones

Drone with eight rotors.

What needs to happen before drones reach their full potential?

Dr. Colin Campbell–  

Even if we we get the flexibility required with drones, we’ve got to get the right sensor on the drone. On the surface, this seems relatively simple.  Sensors to measure spectral reflectance are available in a package size that should easily mount on a drone platform. But, there are still many challenges.  First, current spectral reflectance sensors make a passive reflectance measurement, meaning we’re at the mercy of the reflected sunlight.  Clouds, sun angle, and leaf orientation, among other things, will all affect the measurement. There are several groups working on this (just search “drone NDVI” on the internet), but it’s a difficult problem to solve.  Second, drones create a spectral reflectance “map” of a field that needs to be geo-referenced to features on the ground to match measurements with position.  Once data are collected, the behavior of “plot A” can only be determined by matching the location and spectral reflectance of “plot A.”  Different from the first challenge, this is more related to programming than science, but is still a major hurdle.

Despite these challenges, drones promise incredible benefits as an agricultural and environmental measurement tool. As one industry leader at the drone demonstration put it, “the complexity of the problems that agriculture faces and the opportunities for efficiencies are vast.  It will require ongoing engagement, next year and the year after that. There are a lot of questions to be answered and the efficacy is yet to be determined, but it’s exciting to watch the UAV helicopter and where it’s going.”  Both Campbell and Kelley agree that significant advances will be made within the next few years.

Read about an ROI calculator that’s been created to help growers quantify whether the benefits of using a drone will exceed their costs.

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Could This Farming Practice Make Food Grown in Fukushima Safe?

March 11, 2015 marks four years since the Fukushima disaster.  What have we learned?

Shortly after the Fukushima disaster, we donated some of our sensors to Dr. Masaru Mizoguchi, a scientist colleague at the University of Tokyo.  He is using the equipment to contrive a more environmentally friendly method to rid rice fields in the villages near Fukushima of the radioactive isotope cesium 137.

Over the last three years, government contractors removed 5 cm of topsoil from fields in order to extract the radioactive isotope. The topsoil has been replaced with sand.  The problem with this method is that it also removes most of the essential soil material, leaving the fields a barren wasteland with little hope of recovery anytime soon.  Topsoil removal may also prove ineffective because wild boars dig up the soil to root for insects and larvae.  This presents a problem in the soil stripping method, as it becomes impossible to determine exactly where the 5 cm boundary exists.  In addition, typhoons and heavy rains erode the sand surface raising safety and stability concerns.

Fukushima

Currently, bags full of radioactive topsoil are stacked into pyramids in abandoned fields. An outer black bag layer filled with clean sand is placed around the outside to prevent radiation leakage. The government has promised that these bags will be removed and taken to a repository near the destroyed reactor, but many people don’t believe that will happen as the bags themselves only have a projected life of 3-5 years before they start to degrade. More of these pyramids are being built around Iitate village every day, which is a source of uneasiness for many people that are already cautious about returning.

Dr. Mizoguchi and his colleagues have come up with a new “flooding” method now being tested in smaller fields that can save the topsoil and organic matter while at the same time removing the cesium, making the land usable again within two years.  The new method floods the field and mixes the topsoil with water, leaving the clay particles suspended. Because the cesium binds with the clay, they can drain the water and clay mixture into a pre-dug pit and bury it with a meter of soil after the water has infiltrated.  After one year of using this method, the scientists saw that the cesium levels in the rice had gone down 89%.  And in situ and laboratory instrumentation have shown that two years after cesium removal, the plants’ cesium uptake is negligible, and the food harvested is safe for consumption.

Fukushima

Dr. Mizoguchi standing by a sensor station containing Decagon sensors

Dr. Mizoguchi is monitoring the surrounding forests with our canopy and soils instrumentation in order to determine if runoff from the wilderness areas will return cesium to the fields and what can be done about it.  He’s figured out a way to network all the instrumentation and upload data directly to the cloud. Still, even if this technology and new methodology works, will people around the world ever feel safe eating food grown near Fukushima?  Dr. Mizoguchi says, “I believe that the soil is recovered scientifically and technically.  However, harmful rumors will remain in the public mind for a long time, even if we show the data that proves safety.  So we must keep showing the facts on Fukushima based on scientific data.”

Resurrection of Fukushima Volunteers using Dr. Mizoguchi's method to rehabilitate small farms

Resurrection of Fukushima volunteers use Dr. Mizoguchi’s method to rehabilitate small farms

Incredibly, each weekend a volunteer organization of retired scientists and university professors use their own money and time to travel out to small village farms.  There they labor to rehabilitate the land using Dr. Mizoguchi’s method.  One of the recipients of this selfless work is a 72-year-old farmer who took his nonagenarian mother and returned to their home to fulfill her heartfelt plea that she could live out her final years outside the shadow of a highrise apartment (see this story in the video above).  We are honored to be a part of this humanitarian effort.

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Will Complex Scientific Questions Yield Better Science in Desert FMP Project?

The Desert FMP project originated from a discussion between pretty divergent scientists: Rick Gill, a BYU ecologist, another scientist who works on soil microbes, a plant physiologist, and a mammalogist who researches small mammals.

Desert FMP

Tree fire in Rush Valley

In an interview Rick said, “We started talking one day about the transformations that have occurred in the arid West over the past 100 years.  One of the things we are really interested in is fire.  How do ecosystems recover after fire? What’s the role of water in rangeland recovery? And the unique piece of this is: what’s the role of small mammals in this process?  We may never have thought of that question, or the complexity of researching how all of our questions work together in a system, if scientists from different disciplines hadn’t decided to collaborate.”

Desert FMP

Rush Valley research site. Five replications with four treatments: burned/unburned and small mammal/no small mammal. What’s interesting for us is that you can see that in the burned plots (the light brown) there are strong differences in the amount of the bright green plant—halogeton—that was present and it is systematically associated with the presence of small mammals. Here is the logic: In the spring, the presence of small mammals suppressed the cheatgrass and to some extent halogeton; in the absence of halogeton, cheatgrass ran wild. The cheatgrass transpired away all of the water and the halogeton that had germinated all died before it could flower.

As the experiment unfolds it is becoming clear that small mammals play a larger role in ecosystem recovery from fire than originally thought.  The scientists have used their observations to hypothesize that small mammals eat the seeds and seedlings of two invasive species. This ends up setting the vegetation along a very different trajectory than when small mammals are absent following fire.  Rick says, “We have discovered this complex but interesting interaction between water, fire, and small mammals.  The first year after the fire, a really nasty range forb moved in called halogeton, which is toxic to livestock.   Halogeton also accumulates salts in the upper soil profile that will cause failure in native plant germination.  Cheatgrass has also moved in which makes the area more prone to fire as it connects the sagebrush plants with flammable material.  But what’s interesting is in treatments where mammals were present, the densities of both halogeton and cheatgrass were much lower than where small mammals were absent.

Desert FMP

Plot water potential comparison between Mammal (blue) and no mammal (red) over time. With no mammals to control cheatgrass, it depleted soil water availability below no mammal treatment and consequently halogeten was not able to grow.

 “The other really important thing is that cheatgrass and halogeton have different growth patterns.  Cheatgrass germinates in the Fall.  It reaches peak biomass early in the growing season and then dies off leaving a blanket of dead, highly flammable vegetation.  Halogeton germinates early in the growing season and remains relatively small until early Autumn when it bolts.  These are things that will be really easy to pick up using NDVI sensors, which are sensitive to the amount of green vegetation within the field of view of the sensor.  We are also using a system that we’ve designed to manipulate precipitation input.   This will enable us to connect water availability to the success of two invasive plants that have negative impacts on rangelands.  And with these same treatments we’re going to be able to tease out when in the year and to what extent small mammals are influencing the ecosystem by eating the seeds or the plant and at what stage.”

“Until I saw it in the field, the question of mammals being influential in rangeland fire recovery had never occurred to me.  We only discovered that piece of the puzzle because scientists from differing disciplines are working together.”  How do you feel about this issue?  Will complex scientific questions improve the quality of your science?

Below are two virtual tours of the site:

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

%d bloggers like this: