Mapping Gaps in Sugarcane by UAV RGB Imagery: The Lower and Earlier the Flight, the More Accurate
Marcelo Rodrigues Barbosa Júnior,
Danilo Tedesco,
Rafael de Graaf Corrêa,
Bruno Rafael de Almeida Moreira,
Rouverson Pereira da Silva,
Cristiano Zerbato
Affiliations
Marcelo Rodrigues Barbosa Júnior
Department of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, School of Veterinarian and Agricultural Sciences, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal, São Paulo 14884-900, Brazil
Danilo Tedesco
Department of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, School of Veterinarian and Agricultural Sciences, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal, São Paulo 14884-900, Brazil
Rafael de Graaf Corrêa
Department of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, School of Veterinarian and Agricultural Sciences, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal, São Paulo 14884-900, Brazil
Bruno Rafael de Almeida Moreira
Department of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, School of Veterinarian and Agricultural Sciences, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal, São Paulo 14884-900, Brazil
Rouverson Pereira da Silva
Department of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, School of Veterinarian and Agricultural Sciences, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal, São Paulo 14884-900, Brazil
Cristiano Zerbato
Department of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, School of Veterinarian and Agricultural Sciences, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Jaboticabal, São Paulo 14884-900, Brazil
Imagery data prove useful for mapping gaps in sugarcane. However, if the quality of data is poor or the moment of flying an aerial platform is not compatible to phenology, prediction becomes rather inaccurate. Therefore, we analyzed how the combination of pixel size (3.5, 6.0 and 8.2 cm) and height of plant (0.5, 0.9, 1.0, 1.2 and 1.7 m) could impact the mapping of gaps on unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) RGB imagery. Both factors significantly influenced mapping. The larger the pixel or plant, the less accurate the prediction. Error was more likely to occur for regions on the field where actively growing vegetation overlapped at gaps of 0.5 m. Hence, even 3.5 cm pixel did not capture them. Overall, pixels of 3.5 cm and plants of 0.5 m outstripped other combinations, making it the most accurate (absolute error ~0.015 m) solution for remote mapping on the field. Our insights are timely and provide forward knowledge that is particularly relevant to progress in the field’s prominence of flying a UAV to map gaps. They will enable producers to make decisions on replanting and fertilizing site-specific high-resolution imagery data.