Multi-Temporal Predictive Modelling of Sorghum Biomass Using UAV-Based Hyperspectral and LiDAR Data

Abstract

High-throughput phenotyping using high spatial, spectral, and temporal resolution remote sensing (RS) data has become a critical part of the plant breeding chain focused on reducing the time and cost of the selection process for the “best” genotypes with respect to the trait(s) of interest. In this paper, the potential of accurate and reliable sorghum biomass prediction using visible and near infrared (VNIR) and short-wave infrared (SWIR) hyperspectral data as well as light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data acquired by sensors mounted on UAV platforms is investigated. Predictive models are developed using classical regression-based machine learning methods for nine experiments conducted during the 2017 and 2018 growing seasons at the Agronomy Center for Research and Education (ACRE) at Purdue University, Indiana, USA. The impact of the regression method, data source, timing of RS and field-based biomass reference data acquisition, and the number of samples on the prediction results are investigated. R2 values for end-of-season biomass ranged from 0.64 to 0.89 for different experiments when features from all the data sources were included. Geometry-based features derived from the LiDAR point cloud to characterize plant structure and chemistry-based features extracted from hyperspectral data provided the most accurate predictions. Evaluation of the impact of the time of data acquisition during the growing season on the prediction results indicated that although the most accurate and reliable predictions of final biomass were achieved using remotely sensed data from mid-season to end-of-season, predictions in mid-season provided adequate results to differentiate between promising varieties for selection. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the accuracies of the predictive models showed that both the data source and regression method are important factors for a reliable prediction; however, the data source was more important with 69% significance, versus 28% significance for the regression method.