GiESCO 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 Evaluation of intra-vineyard spatial and temporal variability of leaf area index using multispectral images obtained by satellite (Landsat 8, Sentinel-2) and unmanned aerial vehicle platforms

Evaluation of intra-vineyard spatial and temporal variability of leaf area index using multispectral images obtained by satellite (Landsat 8, Sentinel-2) and unmanned aerial vehicle platforms

Abstract

Context and purpose of the study – Estimation of vineyard leaf area index (LAI) is an important aspect for the winegrowers. However, tracking and monitoring are difficult tasks due to time constraints. Satellite and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imaging have become a practical monitoring method for LAI. Nevertheless, for a proper LAI determination, the image’s spatial resolution is a key factor, since low-resolution images are incapable of distinguishing between adjacent vines due to the large area covered in each pixel, this leads to misinterpretation or generalisation of vineyard information. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of spatial resolution on the accuracy of LAI estimation using different spatial resolutions: Landsat8 (30 m), Sentinel-2 (10 m) and UAV Multispectral images (0.05 m).

Material and methods – This study was carried out in a dryland vineyard cv. Pinotage situated in Stellenbosch, at the Welgevallen experimental farm (33°57’8” S, 18°52’26” E). The block (1.9 ha) has a North-South orientation and was planted on a West-South-West slope. The vines are trained on a sevenwire (moveable) hedge trellis, VSP (vertical shoot positioning) system. Three sources of remote sensing data, with different spatial resolutions, were chosen: i) Multispectral images acquired by a multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (spatial resolution 0.052 m); ii) Landsat 8 images (spatial resolution of 30 m) and iii) Sentinel-2A images (spatial resolution of 30 m). Images from these three sources were used to calculate the normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) from the experimental site, and these values were compared with field measurements (empirical LAI model).

Results – Results obtained from low-resolution satellite images show a poor accuracy in the estimation of LAI on a plant scale. The image resolution of Landsat 8 and Sentinel-2 was not high enough to differentiate between adjacent groups of vines. The UAV multispectral images obtained the best agreement with the field LAI measurements, due to the high resolution (0.052 m pixel size). It is evident with the results obtained that UAV imaging is the most appropriate and accurate monitoring methodology since this technology providing enough information to estimate LAI per plant.

DOI:

Publication date: September 27, 2023

Issue: GiESCO 2019

Type: Poster

Authors

Yolandi BARNARD1, Guillermo OLMEDO2, Albert STREVER1, Carlos POBLETE-ECHEVERRÍA1*

1 Department of Viticulture and Oenology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa
2 EEA Mendoza, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Mendoza M5507EVY, Argentina

Contact the author

Keywords

Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), grid analysis, spatial variability

Tags

GiESCO | GiESCO 2019 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

ePROSECCO: Historical, cultural, applied philosophy analysis and process, product and certification innovation, for the “sustainable original progress and promotion 4.1c” of a historic and famous territory and wine

According to the algorithm “A step back towards the future 4.1C”, (Cargnello,1986a, 1987d, 1988a.b, 1991, 1993, 1994b, 1995, 1999a.e, 2000b, 2007c, 2008a, 2009d, 2013; and according to the principles of “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” of GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, 2003 2015, 2017), the historical, applied philosophy and productive analysis connected to the innovations and to the “Certification of the Universal Holistic MetaEthical Sustainability 4.1C” “indexed new global production model 4.1C” has always been fundamental, especially for the “Prosecco Territory” and for the “Prosecco Wine” to design and implement their synergistic future “Sustainable and Certificable 4.1CC” according to the principles of the “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” by the GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, lc, Cargnello et Carbonneau, 2007, 2018), and of the Conegliano Campus 5.1C. (Cargnello, lc). Nowadays, people think that Prosecco is a wine from the Veneto Region (from Conegliano and Valdobbiadene in particular), while it comes from Friuli‐Venezia Giulia Region (in North Eastern Italy, such as Veneto) more precisely from “Prosecco” in the Municipality of Trieste (TS‐Italy), as documented in 1382 and in 1548, when Pier Andrea Mattioli, described “that ancient wine, which is born in Prosecco”, as a wine with the following characteristics “thin, clear, shiny, golden, odorous and pleasant to taste». In 1888 at the “Wine Fair” of Trieste there were the “Sparkling wine Prosecco” by Giovanni Balanc, by Giuseppe Klampferer and that one by Marino Luxa. In the 19th century, many expressed their appreciation for the “Prosecco” of Trieste. In order to implement intra and extra territorial and cross‐border relations, as well as, the “Certification of: Products, Companies, Territory, Bio‐MétaÉthique District 4.1C” of Prosecco, a series of activities and researches were conducted in 8 companies: 5 in the “Territory of Prosecco” (TS) in which the principles of “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” of GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, lc) have been successfully applied. In particolar: 1‐ new and original “Sustainable 4.1C global production model” developed also to prevent the problems caused by wild boar, roe deer, and birds while safeguarding their “psychophysical wellness”, as well as the “psychophysical wellness 4.1C” of the macro and micro flora and fauna, of the biodiversity, of the landscape, etc. (Cargnello, lc), 1.2‐ chemical weed control and “Non MetaEthics 4.1C” processing with the total grass growing of the ground without or with mowing, better if it is manual to protect grass, air and soil, 2‐ recovery of “Historic”: land, vineyards, vines, biodiversity, landscapes, productions, products, … , 3‐ production of the famous “Prosekar, also rosé, of Prosecco” and “Prosecco di Prosecco”, according to “A step back towards the future 4.1C” 4‐ to offer a deserved psychophysical well‐being to the “Prosecco Territory” and entrepreneurs. 

New markers for monitoring “fresh mushroom aroma” in wine: A dual approach using microbiological and chemical tools from the vineyard to winery–A synthesis of recent research advances

The ‘fresh mushroom off-flavour’ has been recognized by the wine industry as an emerging defect since the 2000s. For many years, this off-flavour was not specifically characterized and rather grouped under ‘earthy’ and ‘musty’ taints. However, it has become increasingly problematic due to its rising prevalence. In some vineyards, incidents of this off-flavour now occur as frequently as once every five years. This trend may be associated with climatic changes affecting regions that are more prone to warm and wet seasons.

NADES extraction of anthocyanins derivatives from grape pomace

Grape pomace is one of the main by-products generated after pressing in wine-making. It’s valorization through the extraction of bioactive compounds is the answer for the development of sustainable processes. Nevertheless, in the recovery of anthocyanins derivatives, the extraction stage continues to be a limiting step. The nature of the sample and the type of solvent determine the efficiency of the process

Unveiling the impact of seasonal weather and fungicide spraying on vineyard autochthonous yeast populations: implications for Riesling wine quality

Fungicide spraying is a common viticultural practice that occurs throughout the growth season that protects developing vines and bunches against diseases caused by fungi or oomycetes.

PHENOTYPIC DIVERSITY AND BIO-PROTECTION CAPABILITY OF METSCHNIKOWIA SP. IN OENOLOGY

Nowadays, the trend is to reduce the use of chemical inputs in the food sector, including in oenology. One of the inputs widely used in the wine making process are sulfites, for its several properties: antimicrobial and antioxidiant. This use isn’t without consequences on consumer’s health and environment, it can lead for example to allergic reactions and pollution. To limit the addition of chemical inputs, microbial alternatives are used. It consists to inoculate in grape must, a micro-organism able to inhibit the growth of the negative indigenous flora during the phase before the fermentation and to guarantee the sensory qualities of wines.