Final report on research project PS2010, proof of concept of automated mapping of weeds in arable fields

Many weeds occur in patches but farmers frequently spray whole fields to control the weeds in these patches. Given a geo-referenced weed map, technology exists to confine spraying to these patches. Adoption of patch spraying by arable farmers has, however, been negligible partly due to the difficulty of constructing weed maps. Building on previous DEFRA and HGCA projects, this proposal aims to develop and evaluate a machine vision system to automate the weed mapping process. The project thereby addresses the principal technical stumbling block to widespread adoption of site specific weed management (SSWM). The accuracy of weed identification by machine vision based on a single field survey may be inadequate to create herbicide application maps. We therefore propose to test the hypothesis that sufficiently accurate weed maps can be constructed by integrating information from geo-referenced images captured automatically at different times of the year during normal field activities. Accuracy of identification will also be increased by utilising a priori knowledge of weeds present in fields. To prove this concept, images will be captured from arable fields on two farms and processed offline to identify and map the weeds, focussing especially on black-grass, wild oats, barren brome, couch grass and cleavers. As advocated by Lutman et al. (2002), the approach uncouples the weed mapping and treatment processes and builds on the observation that patches of these weeds are quite stable in arable fields. There are three main aspects to the project. 1) Machine vision hardware. Hardware component parts of the system are one or more cameras connected to a single board computer (Concurrent Solutions LLC) and interfaced with an accurate Global Positioning System (GPS) supplied by Patchwork Technology. The camera(s) will take separate measurements for each of the three primary colours of visible light (red, green and blue) in each pixel. The basic proof of concept can be achieved in principle using a single camera system, but in practice systems with more than one camera may need to be installed so that larger fractions of each field can be photographed. Hardware will be reviewed regularly during the project in response to feedback from other work packages and updated as required. 2) Image capture and weed identification software. The machine vision system will be attached to toolbars of farm machinery so that images can be collected during different field operations. Images will be captured at different ground speeds, in different directions and at different crop growth stages as well as in different crop backgrounds. Having captured geo-referenced images in the field, image analysis software will be developed to identify weed species by Murray State and Reading Universities with advice from The Arable Group. A wide range of pattern recognition and in particular Bayesian Networks will be used to advance the state of the art in machine vision-based weed identification and mapping. Weed identification algorithms used by others are inadequate for this project as we intend to collect and correlate images collected at different growth stages. Plants grown for this purpose by Herbiseed will be used in the first instance. In addition, our image capture and analysis system will include plant characteristics such as leaf shape, size, vein structure, colour and textural pattern, some of which are not detectable by other machine vision systems or are omitted by their algorithms. Using such a list of features observable using our machine vision system, we will determine those that can be used to distinguish weed species of interest. 3) Weed mapping. Geo-referenced maps of weeds in arable fields (Reading University and Syngenta) will be produced with advice from The Arable Group and Patchwork Technology. Natural infestations will be mapped in the fields but we will also introduce specimen plants in pots to facilitate more rigorous system evaluation and testing. Manual weed maps of the same fields will be generated by Reading University, Syngenta and Peter Lutman so that the accuracy of automated mapping can be assessed. The principal hypothesis and concept to be tested is that by combining maps from several surveys, a weed map with acceptable accuracy for endusers can be produced. If the concept is proved and can be commercialised, systems could be retrofitted at low cost onto existing farm machinery. The outputs of the weed mapping software would then link with the precision farming options already built into many commercial sprayers, allowing their use for targeted, site-specific herbicide applications. Immediate economic benefits would, therefore, arise directly from reducing herbicide costs. SSWM will also reduce the overall pesticide load on the crop and so may reduce pesticide residues in food and drinking water, and reduce adverse impacts of pesticides on non-target species and beneficials. Farmers may even choose to leave unsprayed some non-injurious, environmentally-beneficial, low density weed infestations. These benefits fit very well with the anticipated legislation emerging in the new EU Thematic Strategy for Pesticides which will encourage more targeted use of pesticides and greater uptake of Integrated Crop (Pest) Management approaches, and also with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive to reduce levels of pesticides in water bodies. The greater precision of weed management offered by SSWM is therefore a key element in preparing arable farming systems for the future, where policy makers and consumers want to minimise pesticide use and the carbon footprint of farming while maintaining food production and security. The mapping technology could also be used on organic farms to identify areas of fields needing mechanical weed control thereby reducing both carbon footprints and also damage to crops by, for example, spring tines. Objective i. To develop a prototype machine vision system for automated image capture during agricultural field operations; ii. To prove the concept that images captured by the machine vision system over a series of field operations can be processed to identify and geo-reference specific weeds in the field; iii. To generate weed maps from the geo-referenced, weed plants/patches identified in objective (ii).

Variation in the sensitivity of DOC release between different organic soils following H2SO4 and sea-salt additions

Long-term monitoring data from eastern North America and Europe indicate a link between increased dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations in surface waters over the last two decades and decreased atmospheric pollutant and marine sulphur (S) deposition. The hypothesis is that decreased acidity and ionic strength associated with declining S deposition has increased the solubility of DOC. However, the sign and magnitude of DOC trends have varied between sites, and in some cases at sites where S deposition has declined, no significant increase in DOC has been observed, creating uncertainty about the causal mechanisms driving the observed trends. In this paper, we demonstrate chemical regulation of DOC release from organic soils in batch experiments caused by changes in acidity and conductivity (measured as a proxy for ionic strength) associated with controlled SO42− additions. DOC release from the top 10 cm of the O-horizon of organo-mineral soils and peats decreased by 21–60% in response to additions of 0–437 µeq SO42− l−1 sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and neutral sea-salt solutions (containing Na+, Mg2+, Cl−, SO42−) over a 20-hour extraction period. A significant decrease in the proportion of the acid-sensitive coloured aromatic humic acids (measured by specific ultra-violet absorbance (SUVA) at 254 nm) was also found with increasing acidity (P < 0.05) in most, but not all, soils, confirming that DOC quality, as well as quantity, changed with SO42− additions. DOC release appeared to be more sensitive to increased acidity than to increased conductivity. By comparing the change in DOC release with bulk soil properties, we found that DOC release from the O-horizon of organo-mineral soils and semi-confined peats, which contained greater exchangeable aluminium (Al) and had lower base saturation (BS), were more sensitive to SO42− additions than DOC release from blanket peats with low concentrations of exchangeable Al and greater BS. Therefore, variation in soil type and acid/base status between sites may partly explain the difference in the magnitude of DOC changes seen at different sites where declines in S deposition have been similar.

Global climate change and soil carbon stocks: predictions from two contrasting models for the turnover of organic carbon in soil

Enhanced release of CO2 to the atmosphere from soil organic carbon as a result of increased temperatures may lead to a positive feedback between climate change and the carbon cycle, resulting in much higher CO2 levels and accelerated lobal warming. However, the magnitude of this effect is uncertain and critically dependent on how the decomposition of soil organic C (heterotrophic respiration) responds to changes in climate. Previous studies with the Hadley Centre’s coupled climate–carbon cycle general circulation model (GCM) (HadCM3LC) used a simple, single-pool soil carbon model to simulate the response. Here we present results from numerical simulations that use the more sophisticated ‘RothC’ multipool soil carbon model, driven with the same climate data. The results show strong similarities in the behaviour of the two models, although RothC tends to simulate slightly smaller changes in global soil carbon stocks for the same forcing. RothC simulates global soil carbon stocks decreasing by 54 GtC by 2100 in a climate change simulation compared with an 80 GtC decrease in HadCM3LC. The multipool carbon dynamics of RothC cause it to exhibit a slower magnitude of transient response to both increased organic carbon inputs and changes in climate. We conclude that the projection of a positive feedback between climate and carbon cycle is robust, but the magnitude of the feedback is dependent on the structure of the soil carbon model.

Modeling the plant uptake of organic chemicals, including the soil-air-plant pathway

The soil−air−plant pathway is potentially important in the vegetative accumulation of organic pollutants from contaminated soils. While a number of qualitative frameworks exist for the prediction of plant accumulation of organic chemicals by this pathway, there are few quantitative models that incorporate this pathway. The aim of the present study was to produce a model that included this pathway and could quantify its contribution to the total plant contamination for a range of organic pollutants. A new model was developed from three submodels for the processes controlling plant contamination via this pathway: aerial deposition, soil volatilization, and systemic translocation. Using the combined model, the soil−air−plant pathway was predicted to account for a significant proportion of the total shoot contamination for those compounds with log KOA > 9 and log KAW < −3. For those pollutants with log KOA < 9 and log KAW > −3 there was a higher deposition of pollutant via the soil−air−plant pathway than for those chemicals with log KOA > 9 and log KAW < −3, but this was an insignificant proportion of the total shoot contamination because of the higher mobility of these compounds via the soil−root−shoot pathway. The incorporation of the soil−air−plant pathway into the plant uptake model did not significantly improve the prediction of the contamination of vegetation from polluted soils when compared across a range of studies. This was a result of the high variability between the experimental studies where the bioconcentration factors varied by 2 orders of magnitude at an equivalent log KOA. One potential reason for this is the background air concentration of the pollutants under study. It was found background air concentrations would dominate those from soil volatilization in many situations unless there was a soil hot spot of contamination, i.e., >100 mg kg−1.