| |
| Publication Type:
| Report |
|---|
| Content Type: | Abstract or Summary only |
|---|
| Author(s): | Boyd, J. W.;
Richardson, M. D.;
Karcher, D. E. |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | University of Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas |
|---|
| Title: | Using digital photography to quantify the effects of herbicides on turfgrass growth |
|---|
| Section: | Weed management in turf, pasture, and rangeland
Other records with the "Weed management in turf, pasture, and rangeland" Section
|
|---|
| Meeting Info.: | 55th Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA: January 28-30, 2002 |
|---|
| Source: | Southern Weed Science Society Proceedings. Vol. 55, 2002, p. 56. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 1 |
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "The usual method of evaluating the effect of herbicides on warm-season turfgrass sprig grow-in is to visually estimate the percent turfgrass cover at regular intervals and compare it to a weed-free control or a standard herbicide treatment. Visual ratings may be subjective, especially when a variety of researchers collect data. A study was undertaken to evaluate the potential of digital image analysis as a tool to provide an accurate and objective measure of turfgrass groundcover. Plot photographs were taken with an Olympus Camedia C-3040ZOOM digital camera equipped with a wireless, remote shutter release. An L-shaped stand made from 1.5 inch PVC pipe with a camera bracket attached was used to hold the camera 6 feet above the center of the plots. Digital images were analyzed using SigmaScan® software; a program that separates specific colors within a digital image and then quantifies the area of that image that containing that color. Tifway bermudagrass was sprigged at 400 bushels per acre on a center pivot irrigated, sandy loam soil in central Arkansas. The sprigs were treated on July 10, 2001. Visual and digital estimates of percent turfgrass cover were made at 27, 35, 45, 72, and 86 DAT (days after treatment). Visual estimates of percent groundcover at 27 DAT were greater than those generated with image analysis. Careful evaluation of the data showed that digital estimates were more accurate than visual ratings. In other words, we tended to see more than what was there. At the 35 and 45 DAT evaluation dates, visual and digital image analysis values were very consistent. However, at 72 and 86 DAT, the SigmaScan® software underestimated the percent turfgrass cover. It was determined that this error was due to shadows in the digital images. The cover analysis macro was rewritten so that the program analyses could be corrected by using a calibration image from the current set of images to compensate for shadows. This alteration in the program brought late season digital values in line with visual estimates. This methodology offers an inexpensive, rapid and objective method of evaluating turfgrass grow-in." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 0 |
|---|
| Note: | This item is an abstract only! |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Boyd, J. W., M. D. Richardson, and D. E. Karcher. 2002. Using digital photography to quantify the effects of herbicides on turfgrass growth. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Proc. 55:p. 56. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=83360 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 83360. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| 
MSU catalog number: SB 611 .S6 v.54 |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
