The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
UAV-based multispectral remote sensing for precision agriculture: A comparison between different cameras
Abstract
Abstract Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-based multispectral remote sensing has shown great potential for precision agriculture. However, there are many problems in data acquisition, processing and application, which have stunted its development. In this study, a narrowband Mini-MCA6 multispectral camera and a sunshine-sensor-equipped broadband Sequoia multispectral camera were mounted on a multirotor micro-UAV. They were used to simultaneously collect multispectral imagery and soil–plant analysis development (SPAD) values of maize at multiple sampling points in the field, in addition to the spectral reflectances of six standard diffuse reflectance panels with different reflectance values (4.5%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 60% and 65%). The accuracies of the reflectance and vegetation indices (VIs) derived from the imagery were compared, and the effectiveness and accuracy of the SPAD prediction from the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and red-edge NDVI (reNDVI) under different nitrogen treatments were examined at the plot level. The results show that the narrowband Mini-MCA6 camera could produce more accurate reflectance values than the broadband Sequoia camera, but only if the appropriate calibration method (the nonlinear subband empirical line method) was adopted, especially in visible (blue, green and red) bands. However, the accuracy of the VIs was not completely dependent on the accuracy of the reflectance, i.e., the NDVI from Mini-MCA6 was slightly better than that from Sequoia, whereas Sequoia produced more accurate reNDVI than did Mini-MCA6. At the plot level, reNDVI performed better than NDVI in SPAD prediction regardless of which camera was employed. Moreover, the reNDVI had relatively low sensitivity to the vegetation coverage and was insignificantly affected by environmental factors (e.g., exposed sandy soil). This study indicates that UAV multispectral remote sensing technology is instructive for precision agriculture, but more effort is needed regarding calibration methods for vegetation, postprocessing techniques and robust quantitative studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Willmott, C., & Matsuura, K. (2005) · Climate Research · doi:10.3354/cr030079 · Cited by 6,512
Berni, J., Zarco-Tejada, P. J., Suarez, L., & Fereres, E. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2008.2010457 · Cited by 1,308
Calibration of the Minolta SPAD-502 leaf chlorophyll meter
Markwell, J., Osterman, J. C., & Mitchell, J. L. (1995) · Photosynthesis Research · doi:10.1007/bf00032301 · Cited by 972
Yang, G., Liu, J., Zhao, C., Li, Z., Huang, Y., Yu, H., Xu, B., Yang, X., Zhu, D., Zhang, X., et al. (2017) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.01111 · Cited by 767
A visible band index for remote sensing leaf chlorophyll content at the canopy scale
Hunt, E. R., Doraiswamy, P. C., McMurtrey, J. E., Daughtry, C. S. T., Perry, E. M., & Akhmedov, B. (2013) · International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2012.07.020 · Cited by 577
Whitehead, K., & Hugenholtz, C. H. (2014) · Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems · doi:10.1139/juvs-2014-0006 · Cited by 428
Estimation of crop LAI using hyperspectral vegetation indices and a hybrid inversion method
Liang, L., Di, L., Zhang, L., Deng, M., Qin, Z., Zhao, S., & Lin, H. (2015) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2015.04.032 · Cited by 412
Maimaitijiang, M., Ghulam, A., Sidike, P., Hartling, S., Maimaitiyiming, M., Peterson, K., Shavers, E., Fishman, J., Peterson, J., Kadam, S., et al. (2017) · ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2017.10.011 · Cited by 387
A Two-Step Filtering approach for detecting maize and soybean phenology with time-series MODIS data
Sakamoto, T., Wardlow, B. D., Gitelson, A. A., Verma, S. B., Suyker, A. E., & Arkebauer, T. J. (2010) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2010.04.019 · Cited by 340
Laliberte, A. S., Goforth, M. A., Steele, C. M., et al. (2011) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs3112529 · Cited by 322
Cited by
Yang, W., Feng, H., Zhang, X., Zhang, J., Doonan, J. H., Batchelor, W. D., Xiong, L., & Yan, J. (2020) · Molecular Plant · doi:10.1016/j.molp.2020.01.008 · Cited by 961
High-throughput phenotyping: Breaking through the bottleneck in future crop breeding
Song, P., Wang, J., Guo, X., Yang, W., & Zhao, C. (2021) · The Crop Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cj.2021.03.015 · Cited by 269
A comparative study of deep learning and internet of things for precision agriculture
Saranya, T., Deisy, C., Sridevi, S., & Anbananthen, K. S. M. (2023) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106034 · Cited by 232
ATSS Deep Learning-Based Approach to Detect Apple Fruits
Biffi, L. J., Mitishita, E., Liesenberg, V., Santos, A. A. D., Gonçalves, D. N., Estrabis, N. V., Silva, J. D. A., Osco, L. P., Ramos, A. P. M., Centeno, J. A. S., et al. (2020) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs13010054 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Deng, L., Mao, Z., Li, X., Hu, Z., Duan, F., & Yan, Y.
- Venue
- ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-12
- Volume
- 146
- Pages
- 124-136
- ISSN
- 0924-2716 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2890513934
- Cited by
- 507
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 23.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: UAV-based multispectral remote sensing for precision agriculture: A comparison between different cameras. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.09.008
- The paper
- Deng, L., Mao, Z., Li, X., Hu, Z., Duan, F., & Yan, Y. (2018). UAV-based multispectral remote sensing for precision agriculture: A comparison between different cameras. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.09.008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.