Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T21:57:16.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accuracy of a Global Positioning System (GPS) for Weed Mapping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Theodore M. Webster  and
John Cardina
Theodore M. Webster
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
John Cardina
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to test the accuracy of a global positioning system (GPS) in measuring the area of simulated weed patches of varying size and to determine the accuracy in navigating back to particular points in a field. Circular areas of 5, 50, and 500 m2 were established and measured using point and polygon features of a GPS. The GPS estimations of the area of those patches had errors ranging from 7 to 45%, 6 to 15%, and 3 to 6%, respectively, when compared to actual measurements. As patch size increased, errors decreased. A curve describing the relationship between GPS error and patch size had an excellent fit (r 2 = 0.92). The error remained the same in all measurements across all patch sizes, but composed a smaller percentage of large patches. The GPS had submeter accuracy in navigation to the correct quadrat 73% of the time, located the correct quadrat 27% of the time, and invariably navigated to within 1.58 m of the correct quadrat. The relationship between patch size and measurement error was applied to natural infestations of hemp dogbane.

Keywords

Hemp dogbane, Apocynum cannabinum L. # APCCASpatial weed dynamicsvegetation mappingGeographical information system, GISglobal positioning system, GPShorizontal dilution of precision, HDOPposition dilution of precision, PDOPvertical dilution of precision, VDOP

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 782 - 786
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Amor, R. L. and Harris, R. V. 1975. Seedling establishment and vegetative spread of Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. In Victoria, Australia. Weed Res. 15:407–411.Google Scholar
Horowitz, M. 1973. Spatial growth of Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Weed Res. 13:200–208.Google Scholar
Kvien, C., Walters, D., and Usery, L. 1995. Farming in the information age. Precision Farming Dec:13–19.Google Scholar
Lass, L. W. and Callihan, R. H. 1993. GPS and GIS for weed surveys and management. Weed Technol. 7:249–254.Google Scholar
Schueller, J. K. 1996. Impediments to spatially-variable field operations. Comput. Electron. Agric. 14:249–253.Google Scholar
Stafford, J. V. and Ambler, B. 1994. In-Held location using GPS for spatially variable field operations. Comput. Electron. Agric. 11:23–26.Google Scholar
Stafford, J. V., Le Bars, J. M., and Ambler, B. 1996. A hand-held data logger with integral GPS for producing weed maps by field walking. Comput. Electron. Agric. 14:235–247.Google Scholar
Trimble Navigation. 1996. TDC1 Asset Surveyor™ Software User's Guide. Surveying and Mapping Division. Sunnyvale, CA: Trimble Navigation.Google Scholar
Trimble Navigation. 1997. Characterizing Accuracy of Trimble Pathfinder Mapping Receivers. Survey and Mapping Systems Group. Sunnyvale. CA: Trimble Navigation.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. J. and Brain, P. 1990. Weed monitoring on a whole farm—patchiness and the stability of distribution of Alopecurus mysouroides over a 10 year period. In: Integrated Weed Management in Cereals. Helsinki: Proceedings of the European Weed Research Society Symposium. pp. 45–52.Google Scholar