water productivity of irrigated crops using hyperspectral remote sensing michael marshall u.s....
Post on 17-Jan-2016
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Water Productivity of Irrigated Crops
using Hyperspectral Remote Sensing
Michael Marshall U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
2255 N. Gemini Dr.Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Ph: (928) 556-7215, Fx: (928) 556-7169
mmarshall@usgs.gov
August 15, 2013
2
California water crisis Crop water productivity defined Remote sensing methods Project objectives Study area Field methods Current progress Near future
Presentation Overview
3
California Water Crisis
15% of national receipts for crops
Water supply deficit 2 million acre-ft
Irrigated agriculture 75-80% of annual water budget (USDA, 2009)
(NRDC 2010)
4
Bos (1985) expresses WP as follows:
Crop Water Productivity (WP)
Water productive crops assimilate more carbon and increase biomass/yield, while losing less water to atmospheric demand.
ππ=ππππππππππ π (ππππ $ )
ππππππ£ππππ‘ππππ πππππ‘πππ(π3)
5
Hyper- spatial/spectral Remote Sensing
6
Field Spectral Data
LAI = 0.13
LAI = 6.89
LAI = 4.36
7
Biomass/yield for key crops in CAβ Hyper-spectral bands and techniques (field)β Hyper- and multi- spatial/spectral image fusion of
biomass/yield
Evapotranspiration (ET) for key crops in CAβ Irrigation specific ET parameterization, hyper- spectral
canopy fraction, and CIMIS EP
β Hyper- and multi- spatial/spectral image fusion of ET
Crop Water Productivity (WP) for key crops in CAβ Determine contributing factors and sensitivity to lower
WPβ Potential climate driven water costs and savings
alternatives
Primary Research Objectives and Deliverables
8
12 farms spanning Kern, Kings, Fresno, Sacramento, Solano, Yolo, and Yuba counties
Alfalfa, corn, cotton, and rice
Drip, pivot-line, and furrow
1200 spectra per visit 3 visits (rapid-growth,
flowering, and grain-filling)
Includes ET fields (rice x 2, corn x 3, alfalfa, and cotton)
Study Area (2011-2012)
9
Field Visit 2012
10
Field Methods (biomass)
60 m*
10 x 1m2 samples per frameβ Spectra (ASD FieldSpec Pro3)β Heightβ # of plants per sampleβ Vegetation fraction (fc)β LAI/PAR (Decagon AccuPAR)β Biochemical
Aboveground wet biomass sample Allometric equation
11
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (http://www.flintbox.com/public/project/5470/)
RGB photos taken above canopy Histogram-threshold approach to estimate (fc) and LAI RGB indices
Vegetation Fraction
(Liu and Pattey 2010)
12
Allometric Equations
Cotton (Calibration) Cotton (Validation)
Adj R2 = 0.67p<0.001
Adj R2 = 0.67p<0.001
13
Rice (Calibration) Rice (Validation)
R2 = 0.75p<0.001
R2 = 0.70p<0.001
14
R2 = 0.67p<0.001
R2 = 0.62p<0.001
15
R2 = 0.62p<0.001
R2 = 0.43p<0.001
Maize (Calibration) Maize (Validation)
16
Biomass Methods with Field Spec
Spectra was collected from 350-2500nm between Β±2 hours of solar noon
Inter-sensor calibration Atmospheric noise Hyperion aggregation (1nm ββΊ 10nm) 1st derivative, 2nd derivative, exponential,
inverse logarithmic [log(1/R)] transformations
17
Raw Spectra (per crop type)N = 65
Rice, best predicted with highest correlations in the NIR. High correlations around 428nm, but not consistently through the visible.
Mx = 0.73 @ 895 nmMn = -0.54 @ 428 nm
18
N = 85
Alfalfa, probably best predicted overall. Very high correlations around the red-edge and SWIR, but lower in the NIR compared to rice.
Mx = 0.55 @ 763 nmMn = -0.50 @ 651 nm
19
N = 109
Cotton, probably next best predicted. Very high correlations in the visible and over a larger range than the other crops. Characteristic biomass bands
Mx = 0.43 @ 895 nmMn = -0.54 @ 448 nm
20
N = 109
Maize, the worst predicted. Very low correlations overall. Highest in the NIR
1st derivative considerably better
Mx = 0.32 @ 1094 nmMn = -0.14 @ 428 nm
21
log(1/R)Used in the literature to indicate absorption (i.e. negative correlations with biomass now become positive). Overall, no significant improvements, however, slight improvements in the visible for all crops:
22
23
24
25
1st Derivative Much higher correlations in the NIR than raw spectra, but not the SWIR
Mx = 0.87 @ 1155nmMn = -0.79 @ 1124 nm
26
Correlations higher than the raw spectra overall, particularly around the red-edge
Particularly high correlation at 1437nm (water)
Mx = 0.62 @ 773 nmMn = -0.63 @ 763 nm
27
Correlations higher than the raw spectra in the NIR, but raw spectra much higher in the visible
Mx = 0.63 @ 1054 nmMn = -0.62 @ 943 nm
28
Correlations higher than the raw spectra overall (visible, red-edge, NIR, and SWIR).
Mx = 0.60 @ 773 nm Mn = -0.42 @1679 nm
29
2nd Derivative
30
31
32
33
2nd derivative results are very noisy, however strong inflection points exist at 468 (cotton), 529, 733, 1034, and 1235 nm
At each inflection point, a pseudo integral was performed over a selected window. In each window, the 2nd derivatives were summed and divided by the difference in wavelengths. The windows were centered at 468, 529, β¦
The window width was done iteratively from 25 β 300 nm at 25 nm increments
Some examplesβ¦
34
35
Stepwise RegressionCall:lm(formula = ident$Biomass ~ ident$Constant + ident$R895 + ident$R1599)
Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1596.0 -522.0 -118.3 397.8 2213.6
Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities) Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 154.8 309.2 0.501 0.618974 ident$Constant NA NA NA NA ident$R895 8634.1 1029.2 8.389 0.000000000112 ***ident$R1599 -10647.7 2625.4 -4.056 0.000201 ***---Signif. codes: 0 β***β 0.001 β**β 0.01 β*β 0.05 β.β 0.1 β β 1
Residual standard error: 795.5 on 44 degrees of freedomMultiple R-squared: 0.6449, Adjusted R-squared: 0.6288 F-statistic: 39.96 on 2 and 44 DF, p-value: 0.0000000001281
36
Call:lm(formula = ident$Biomass ~ ident$Constant + ident$R1145 + ident$R1740)
Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1244.73 -438.06 -98.34 280.62 1949.94
Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities) Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 588.1 221.7 2.652 0.0111 * ident$Constant NA NA NA NA ident$R1145 -773402.7 83200.0 -9.296 0.00000000000605 ***ident$R1740 1799079.6 786673.4 2.287 0.0271 * ---Signif. codes: 0 β***β 0.001 β**β 0.01 β*β 0.05 β.β 0.1 β β 1
Residual standard error: 715.2 on 44 degrees of freedomMultiple R-squared: 0.713, Adjusted R-squared: 0.7 F-statistic: 54.66 on 2 and 44 DF, p-value: 0.000000000001183
1st Derivative
37
2nd DerivativeCall:lm(formula = ident$Biomass ~ ident$Constant + ident$R1155 + ident$R1104)
Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1031.74 -251.20 -53.93 138.28 1724.47
Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities) Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 259.6 143.5 1.809 0.077235 . ident$Constant NA NA NA NA ident$R1155 8186742.3 625948.1 13.079 < 0.0000000000000002 ***ident$R1104 -14968697.3 3724062.7 -4.019 0.000225 ***---Signif. codes: 0 β***β 0.001 β**β 0.01 β*β 0.05 β.β 0.1 β β 1
Residual standard error: 575.1 on 44 degrees of freedomMultiple R-squared: 0.8144, Adjusted R-squared: 0.806 F-statistic: 96.56 on 2 and 44 DF, p-value: < 0.00000000000000022
38
Inverse LogCall:lm(formula = ident$Biomass ~ ident$Constant + ident$R895 + ident$R743)
Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1197.7 -489.6 -150.0 350.7 3086.4
Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities) Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 1193.5 636.2 1.876 0.067281 . ident$Constant NA NA NA NA ident$R895 -12295.7 2344.5 -5.245 0.00000428 ***ident$R743 11050.1 2853.8 3.872 0.000354 ***---Signif. codes: 0 β***β 0.001 β**β 0.01 β*β 0.05 β.β 0.1 β β 1
Residual standard error: 830.3 on 44 degrees of freedomMultiple R-squared: 0.6132, Adjusted R-squared: 0.5956 F-statistic: 34.88 on 2 and 44 DF, p-value: 0.0000000008411
39
Best index at 1215 and 1256 nm (R2 = 0.68). Three potential outliers (sresid > 2,<-2): RIBIG0101.3.2011, RIMIR0109.2.2012, RIWIL0101.3.2012. Heteroskedastic
2 Band HS Indices
Rice (Scatterplot β Raw Spec)
40
Rice (2D Ξ»-Ξ» plots)
1215 & 1256 R2 = 0.68 1145 & 1155 R2 = 0.71
1225 & 1447 R2 = 0.67 692 & 1155 R2 = 0.52
41
Alfalfa (Scatterplot β Raw Spec)
Best index at 651 and 692 nm (R2 = 0.55). Three potential outliers (sresid > 2,<-2): ALSHA1010.1.2011, ALSHA0901.3.2011, ALSHA1001.3.2011. Heteroskedastic
These residuals were identified in the original biomass analysis with photos, LAI meter, etc. I suspect that I double sampled the alfalfa by mistake
42
Rice (2D Ξ»-Ξ» plots)
651 & 692 R2 = 0.55 631 & 705 R2 = 0.42
845 & 1195 R2 = 0.62 651 & 682 R2 = 0.46
43
Cotton (Scatterplot β Raw Spec)
Best index at 1023 and 1084 nm (R2 = 0.42). Five potential outliers (sresid > 2,<-2): COSHA0609.2.2011,COWSR0309.2.2011,COSHA0801.3.2011,COSHA0901.3.2011, COWSR0801.3.2011. Heteroskedastic
44
Cotton (2D Ξ»-Ξ» plots)
1023 & 1084 R2 = 0.42 973 & 1114 R2 = 0.37
428 & 1054 R2 = 0.45 1155 & 1447 R2 = 0.40
45
Maize (Scatterplot β Raw Spec)
Best index at 1669 and 1699 nm (R2 = 0.33). Five potential outliers (sresid > 2,<-2): MATYL0401.3.2011, MASTA1010.1.2012, MADAV0909.2.2012.
46
Maize (2D Ξ»-Ξ» plots)
1669 & 1699 R2 = 0.33 763 & 845 R2 = 0.26
794 & 1205 R2 = 0.39 692 & 733 R2 = 0.28
47
Next stepsβ¦
Identify best 2-band hyperspectral index PCA and piecewise regression Estimate biomass and extrapolate
Biomass modeling (REGFLEC)
1) PROSPECT (leaf radiative transfer model)1) Specific leaf area2) Leaf water content3) Chlorophyll a,b4) # of layers
2) SAIL (canopy radiative transfer model)1) Clumping index2) View zenith angle3) Solar illumination specular ratio4) Solar incident zenith angle5) Canopy βhotspotβ parameter
3) Forward direction: spectral indices4) Inverse direction: biomass
48
49
Remote Sensing Data FusionSensor Wavelength
range (ΞΌm)Spatial resolution (m)
# of bands Revisit (days) Digitization (bit)
E0-1 Hyperion 0.43-2.40 30 196 16 16
E0-1 ALI 0.43/2.35 30 10 16 16
Landsat TM 0.45-2.35 30 7/8 16 8
Landsat TIR 10.40-12.50 120/60 1 16 8
ASTER 0.52-2.43 30 14 16 8
ASTER TIR 8.125-11.65 15/30/90 14 16 8
SPOT 5 0.5-1.75 10/20 5 2-3 days 8
GeoEye-1,2 0.45-0.90 1.65 5 <3 11
IKONOS 0.45-0.93 4 5 3 11
Quickbird 0.45-0.90 2.44 5 1-6 11
Rapideye 0.44-0.85 5-6.5 5 1-6 16
ISAAC Same as Landsat Bands 2,3,4
Varies 3 Weekly* 8
50
LE Latent heat LEs + LEc + LEI(Fisher et al., 2008)
LEc Canopy LE (Fisher et al., 2008); (Priestley and Taylor, 1972)
LEs Soil LE (Fisher et al., 2008); (Priestley and Taylor, 1972)
LEi Wet canopy LE (Fisher et al., 2008); (Priestley and Taylor, 1972)
fwet Relative surface wetness RH4 (Fisher et al., 2008)
fg Green canopy fraction (Fisher et al., 2008)
fT Plant temperature constraint (June et al., 2004)
fM Plant moisture constraint (Fisher et al., 2008)
fSM Soil moisture constraint RHVPD/Ξ² (Fisher et al., 2008)
fAPAR Fraction of PAR absorbed by green vegetation cover
m1SAVI + b1(Gao et al., 2000), (Huete, 2006)
fIPAR Fraction of PAR intercepted by total vegetation cover
m2NDVI + b2(Fisher et al., 2007)
fc Fractional total vegetation cover fIPAR(Campbell and Norman, 1998)
Topt Optimum plant growth temperature Tmax @ max{PARfAPARTmax / VPD} (Fisher et al., 2007)
NCMTgWETRffff
)1(
)())1(( GRfffNSWETSMWET
NCWETRf
IPARAPARff
2
OPTMAX TT
emaxAPARAPAR
ff
PT-JPL model (ET)
ππ=β (π+πΌ ) hπ€ πππ πΌ=0.5 π ππ if ππβ 1<0.5π ππ
Soil evaporation (Es)
{β πΈπ =β (1βπβππΏπ΄πΌ)πΈ0β πΈ0<ΒΏ π½2 ΒΏβ πΈπ =π½ [β (1βπβππΏπ΄πΌ)πΈ0 ]12β πΈ0β₯ π½
2
πΈπ =β πΈπ ,πββ πΈπ ,πβ1
π½=ππβππ€π ππβππ€
51
The following formula puts Es in terms of precipitation and irrigationβ¦
(Ozdogan et al. 2010)
(Mintz et al. 1992)
(Ritchie 1972)
52
1) Daily reference ET (E0)
2) 2 km resolution3) Solar radiation (GOES)4) Air temperature, relative humidity,
and wind speed (2m) are interpolated from CIMIS network
CIMIS spatial data (http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/)
E0
June 19, 2011
πΈ0=β (π πβπΊ )
Ξ» [β+πΎ (1+πΆππ’2 ) ]+πΎ
37ππ+273
π’2 (ππ βππ )
β+πΎ (1+πΆππ’2 )
1) Addresses critical research areas outlined in USGS Science Strategy 2017: Water Census, Climate Variability/Change, and Ecological Change
2) Farmers, scientists, and decision-makers will have the ability to pinpoint areas of lower/higher WP
3) Stakeholders will be able to explore factors contributing to lower WP for improved management
4) Evapotranspiration is a key component of land surface and atmospheric hydrologic models
5) Biomass is a key component of ecological models6) Climate change research7) Techniques developed here can be applied to other parts of the United
States and to developing countries where water scarcity is an ever-present reality
53
Relevance/Implications
top related