Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 507

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

Deng, Lei, Mao, Zhihui, Li, Xiaojuan, Hu, Zhuowei, Duan, Fuzhou, Yan, Yanan·2018·ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.09.008

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 28 references

Cited by

See all 507

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.