Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/58645
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWu, Danen
dc.contributor.authorJohansen, Kasperen
dc.contributor.authorPhinn, Stuarten
dc.contributor.authorRobson, Andrewen
dc.contributor.authorTu, Yu-Hsuanen
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-26T05:00:24Z-
dc.date.available2024-04-26T05:00:24Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, v.89, p. 1-15en
dc.identifier.issn1872-826Xen
dc.identifier.issn1569-8432en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/58645-
dc.description.abstract<p>To support the adoption of precision agricultural practices in horticultural tree crops, prior research has investigated the relationship between crop vigour (height, canopy density, health) as measured by remote sensing technologies, to fruit quality, yield and pruning requirements. However, few studies have compared the accuracy of different remote sensing technologies for the estimation of tree height. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy, flexibility, aerial coverage and limitations of five techniques to measure the height of two types of horticultural tree crops, mango and avocado trees. Canopy height estimates from Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) were used as a reference dataset against height estimates from Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) data, WorldView-3 (WV-3) stereo imagery, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) based RGB and multi-spectral imagery, and field measurements. Overall, imagery obtained from the UAV platform were found to provide tree height measurement comparable to that from the TLS (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.89, RMSE = 0.19 m and rRMSE = 5.37 % for mango trees" R<sup>2</sup> = 0.81, RMSE = 0.42 m and rRMSE = 4.75 % for avocado trees), although coverage area is limited to 1–10 km<sup>2</sup> due to battery life and line-of-sight flight regulations. The ALS data also achieved reasonable accuracy for both mango and avocado trees (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.67, RMSE = 0.24 m and rRMSE = 7.39 % for mango trees" R<sup>2</sup> = 0.63, RMSE = 0.43 m and rRMSE = 5.04 % for avocado trees), providing both optimal point density and flight altitude, and therefore offers an effective platform for large areas (10 km<sup>2</sup> –100 km<sup>2</sup> ). However, cost and availability of ALS data is a consideration. WV-3 stereo imagery produced the lowest accuracies for both tree crops (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.50, RMSE = 0.84 m and rRMSE = 32.64 % for mango trees" R<sup>2</sup> = 0.45, RMSE = 0.74 m and rRMSE = 8.51 % for avocado trees) when compared to other remote sensing platforms, but may still present a viable option due to cost and commercial availability when large area coverage is required. This research provides industries and growers with valuable information on how to select the most appropriate approach and the optimal parameters for each remote sensing platform to assess canopy height for mango and avocado trees.</p>en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherElsevier BVen
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformationen
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.titleInter-comparison of remote sensing platforms for height estimation of mango and avocado tree crownsen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jag.2020.102091en
dcterms.accessRightsUNE Greenen
local.contributor.firstnameDanen
local.contributor.firstnameKasperen
local.contributor.firstnameStuarten
local.contributor.firstnameAndrewen
local.contributor.firstnameYu-Hsuanen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Science and Technologyen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Science and Technologyen
local.profile.emailarobson7@une.edu.auen
local.profile.emailarobson7@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryC1en
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.publisher.placeThe Netherlandsen
local.identifier.runningnumber102091en
local.format.startpage1en
local.format.endpage15en
local.peerreviewedYesen
local.identifier.volume89en
local.access.fulltextYesen
local.contributor.lastnameWuen
local.contributor.lastnameJohansenen
local.contributor.lastnamePhinnen
local.contributor.lastnameRobsonen
local.contributor.lastnameTuen
dc.identifier.staffune-id:arobson7en
dc.identifier.staffune-id:arobson7en
local.profile.orcid0000-0001-5762-8980en
local.profile.orcid0000-0001-5762-8980en
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:1959.11/58645en
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleInter-comparison of remote sensing platforms for height estimation of mango and avocado tree crownsen
local.relation.fundingsourcenoteThe authors acknowledge the Australian Federal Government 'Rural R&D for Profit' scheme and Horticulture Innovation Australia for funding this Research.en
local.output.categorydescriptionC1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journalen
local.search.authorWu, Danen
local.search.authorJohansen, Kasperen
local.search.authorPhinn, Stuarten
local.search.authorRobson, Andrewen
local.search.authorTu, Yu-Hsuanen
local.uneassociationYesen
local.atsiresearchNoen
local.sensitive.culturalNoen
local.year.published2020en
local.fileurl.openpublishedhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/f76480ba-70ee-4d1c-9d23-c851b85ca699en
local.subject.for20203002 Agriculture, land and farm managementen
local.subject.seo2020tbden
local.profile.affiliationtypeExternal Affiliationen
local.profile.affiliationtypeExternal Affiliationen
local.profile.affiliationtypeExternal Affiliationen
local.profile.affiliationtypeUNE Affiliationen
local.profile.affiliationtypeExternal Affiliationen
local.date.moved2024-04-26en
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
School of Environmental and Rural Science
School of Science and Technology
Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
openpublished/IntercomparisonRobson2020JournalArticle.htmPublished version171.2 kBHTMLView/Open
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

35
checked on Jul 6, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons