HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pena-Yewtukhiw, E. M. Articles by Johnson, J. T. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Pena-Yewtukhiw, E. M. Articles by Johnson, J. T. Agricola Articles by Pena-Yewtukhiw, E. M. Articles by Johnson, J. T. Related Collections Nitrogen Geostatistics Spatial Variability Remote Sensing

Spatial Analysis of Early Wheat Canopy Normalized Difference Vegetative Index: Determining Appropriate Observation Scale

^a Division of Plant and Soil Sciences, West Virginia Univ., P.O. Box 6108, Morgantown, WV, 26506-6108
^b N-122 ASCN, Dep. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40546-0091
^c Dep. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Univ. of Kentucky, West Kentucky Research and Education Center, Princeton, KY, 42445
^d Clark County Cooperative Extension Center, 4400 Gateway Blvd, Suite 104, Springfield, OH, 45502. COA-Agricultural Experiment Station No. 05-06-029

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Variograms for early wheat canopy normalized difference vegetative index (NDVI) values taken at 0.56, 1.1, 1.7, and 3.4 m2 grid sizes in the 2004 McAtee field.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Variograms for early wheat canopy normalized difference vegetative index (NDVI) taken at a 1.7 m2 grid size in the Woodford and McAtee fields in 2004 using sensors 2, 5, and 8.

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. (a) High-density and low-density (5.1 m2, sensors 2-5-8; taken from Table 5) variograms for the 2004 McAtee field. (b) Correlation of the low-density semivariance against the high-density semivariance.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. (a) High-density and low-density (1.7 m2, sensors 2-5-8; taken from Table 7) variograms for the 2004 Woodford field. (b) Correlation of the low-density semivariance against the high-density semivariance.

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. (a) High-density and divergent low-density (2.3 m2, sensors 1-3-5-7 and 2-4-6-8; both taken from Table 6) variograms for the 2005-McAtee field. (b) Correlation of low-density semivariance against the high-density semivariance.