Next Article in Journal
Toward High Altitude Airship Ground-Based Boresight Calibration of Hyperspectral Pushbroom Imaging Sensors
Next Article in Special Issue
Airborne Thermal Imagery to Detect the Seasonal Evolution of Crop Water Status in Peach, Nectarine and Saturn Peach Orchards
Previous Article in Journal
Using Stochastic Ray Tracing to Simulate a Dense Time Series of Gross Primary Productivity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Estimation of Evapotranspiration and Crop Coefficients of Tendone Vineyards Using Multi-Sensor Remote Sensing Data in a Mediterranean Environment
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Correction

Correction: Tilly, N. et al. Fusion of Plant Height and Vegetation Indices for the Estimation of Barley Biomass. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 11449–11480

Institute of Geography, GIS & RS, University of Cologne, 50923 Cologne, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Remote Sens. 2015, 7(12), 17291-17296; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs71215878
Submission received: 10 December 2015 / Accepted: 15 December 2015 / Published: 19 December 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing in Precision Agriculture)
After publication of the research paper [1] an error during the data analysis process was recognized. In Table 4 [1] the units for fresh and dry biomass are stated as being g/m2. However, the values actually refer to the sampling area (0.2 m by 0.2 m), hence each value should have been multiplied by 25 to extrapolate it to g/m2. Unfortunately, this step was missed out.
All analyses were re-executed based on the correct values, and the corresponding tables and figures are presented in the same order as in the paper in the following Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3, Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3. Thus, the stated sensitivity thresholds for the saturation of the NDVI and RGBVI must also be corrected to be about 185 g/m2 and 1375 g/m2 for dry and fresh biomass, respectively. In comparison to the originally stated values the R2 and d values for all models did not change and hence, the overall statements of the study are correct. For the linear BRMs, the value ranges were extended through the multiplication by 25 and thus, the SEE and RMSE differ. In contrast, the log-transformation for the exponential BRMs converted the factor to a constant summand, which is added to each value (ln(25)3.22). Consequently, the absolute difference between the biomass values and hence, the SEE and RMSE, do not differ. We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.
Table 1. Correction of Table 4 [1]. Statistics for the plot-wise averaged CSM-derived plant heights and destructively taken biomass for the reduced data sets of 2013 and 2014 (n: number of samples; X ¯ : mean value; min: minimum; max: maximum; SD: standard deviation).
Table 1. Correction of Table 4 [1]. Statistics for the plot-wise averaged CSM-derived plant heights and destructively taken biomass for the reduced data sets of 2013 and 2014 (n: number of samples; X ¯ : mean value; min: minimum; max: maximum; SD: standard deviation).
CSM-Derived Plant Height (m)Fresh Biomass (g/m²)Dry Biomass (g/m²)
n X ¯ minmaxSD X ¯ minmaxSD X ¯ minmaxSD
2013
3120.220.010.390.131282.92491.002172.50473.20168.3152.00272.0056.59
4120.470.240.710.172891.541560.254465.50806.12415.31205.00725.00146.02
5120.780.580.990.135070.422668.757730.001561.62883.38434.501429.25328.93
6120.780.650.930.074631.732986.257655.751193.951258.88886.751687.50219.92
Mean pre-anthesis period123.2762.93191.573081.631573.334789.33946.98489.00
Mean whole observed period138.7777.06220.2442.143469.151926.565505.941008.72
2014
2360.170.120.250.03656.28266.251116.50202.0789.0133.00155.2527.66
3360.410.340.520.042227.081226.753236.50531.72289.83165.75417.7566.03
4360.630.530.700.042825.481643.754162.00603.19465.49276.62706.6597.89
5360.810.690.990.053185.132106.505433.25687.74777.23486.351271.35156.02
6360.780.660.990.053569.341994.756044.00898.591166.38652.601876.35276.46
Mean pre-anthesis period88.9452.43139.482223.491310.813487.06506.18405.39
Mean whole observed period99.7157.90159.9423.722492.661447.603998.45584.66
Table 2. Correction of Table 5 [1]. Statistics for the model calibration as mean values of the four subset combinations (R2: coefficient of determination; SEE: standard error of the estimate).
Table 2. Correction of Table 5 [1]. Statistics for the model calibration as mean values of the four subset combinations (R2: coefficient of determination; SEE: standard error of the estimate).
Bivariate BRMsMultivariate BRMs
Whole PeriodPre-Anthesis Whole PeriodPre-Anthesis
EstimatorR2SEE aR2SEE aEstimator bR2SEE aR2SEE a
Dry biomassLinearPH0.65250.710.76143.34
GnyLi0.52293.800.68166.75GnyLi0.65865.760.77635.30
NDVI0.07409.440.34239.09NDVI0.69537.360.76518.25
NRI0.54289.570.70159.97NRI0.65876.080.77621.60
RDVI0.13396.880.39230.33RDVI0.69479.480.76535.08
REIP0.12398.080.58189.95REIP0.7348353.450.766462.41
RGBVI0.05413.800.26252.59RGBVI0.68557.080.76580.76
ExponentialPH0.840.370.840.34PH
GnyLi0.800.420.850.32GnyLi0.862.430.882.14
NDVI0.300.770.610.53NDVI0.852.850.883.99
NRI0.810.400.870.30NRI0.872.290.891.96
RDVI0.410.710.680.48RDVI0.852.520.882.84
REIP0.370.730.770.40REIP0.8430.390.8648.43
RGBVI0.230.810.480.60RGBVI0.852.510.872.73
EstimatorR2SEE aR2SEE aEstimator bR2SEE aR2SEE a
Fresh biomassLinearPH0.59901.990.60843.32
GnyLi0.58913.810.62829.48GnyLi0.623295.300.642968.91
NDVI0.251222.390.421022.79NDVI0.604561.690.635008.60
NRI0.59909.940.62821.35NRI0.623056.340.642718.09
RDVI0.351143.490.50945.26RDVI0.613813.940.643955.80
REIP0.301180.820.55894.62REIP0.6014599.870.6359169.39
RGBVI0.221243.840.371066.53RGBVI0.614007.930.643881.46
ExponentialPH0.700.370.680.39PH
GnyLi0.760.330.760.34GnyLi0.771.870.771.77
NDVI0.460.500.650.41NDVI0.773.740.794.30
NRI0.770.330.770.33NRI0.771.670.771.56
RDVI0.590.430.740.35RDVI0.792.690.822.89
REIP0.470.490.710.37REIP0.7222.270.7473.05
RGBVI0.380.530.550.47RGBVI0.772.580.782.68
a The SEE for exponential models is calculated from natural log-transformed biomass values; b each fused with PH.
Table 3. Correction of Table 6 [1]. Statistics for the model validation as mean values of the four subset combinations (R2: coefficient of determination; RMSE: root mean square error (g/m2); d: Willmott’s index of agreement).
Table 3. Correction of Table 6 [1]. Statistics for the model validation as mean values of the four subset combinations (R2: coefficient of determination; RMSE: root mean square error (g/m2); d: Willmott’s index of agreement).
Bivariate BRMsMultivariate BRMs
Whole PeriodPre-Anthesis Whole PeriodPre-Anthesis
EstimatorR2RMSE adR2RMSE adEstimator bR2RMSE adR2RMSE ad
Dry biomassLinearPH0.66257.570.880.80147.750.92
GnyLi0.54299.670.810.72173.310.88GnyLi0.65262.190.880.79148.200.92
NDVI0.07412.700.330.38244.470.64NDVI0.71250.350.890.80148.320.92
NRI0.55295.410.820.74166.410.89NRI0.66261.770.880.80147.670.92
RDVI0.13400.360.440.41233.530.71RDVI0.72247.160.890.80148.270.92
REIP0.15404.950.460.68197.500.83REIP0.73228.460.910.80147.880.92
RGBVI0.04416.420.260.28254.410.58RGBVI0.70261.300.880.80149.330.92
ExponentialPH0.850.390.950.850.360.95
GnyLi0.800.420.940.860.330.95GnyLi0.870.360.960.890.310.96
NDVI0.290.770.630.590.540.81NDVI0.850.380.950.870.300.96
NRI0.810.400.940.870.310.96NRI0.870.360.960.890.290.96
RDVI0.400.710.730.660.480.87RDVI0.850.380.950.880.300.96
REIP0.400.750.720.820.430.90REIP0.850.390.950.890.340.95
RGBVI0.220.820.550.480.620.75RGBVI0.850.380.950.860.310.96
EstimatorR2RMSE adR2RMSE adEstimator bR2RMSE adR2RMSE ad
Fresh biomassLinearPH0.67963.450.840.70892.550.85
GnyLi0.65970.700.830.72886.240.84GnyLi0.69939.840.850.74861.730.86
NDVI0.271254.020.580.511053.830.70NDVI0.67952.580.840.73862.840.85
NRI0.65962.490.830.72873.750.85NRI0.69938.460.850.74857.990.86
RDVI0.381175.320.670.59964.420.77RDVI0.68943.960.850.74841.360.86
REIP0.411244.110.660.77951.740.81REIP0.67966.670.840.77908.740.84
RGBVI0.211260.320.530.411066.260.67RGBVI0.66948.900.850.71852.970.86
ExponentialPH0.730.400.890.710.420.88
GnyLi0.780.350.920.790.360.91GnyLi0.790.340.920.800.360.92
NDVI0.440.510.730.640.420.83NDVI0.780.340.920.790.340.92
NRI0.770.340.920.790.350.92NRI0.790.340.920.790.350.92
RDVI0.570.440.820.730.360.89RDVI0.800.330.930.830.310.93
REIP0.540.530.770.820.420.87REIP0.770.390.900.820.400.88
RGBVI0.360.540.680.530.470.78RGBVI0.760.340.920.760.340.92
a The RMSE for exponential models is calculated from natural log-transformed biomass values; b each fused with PH.
Figure 1. Correction of Figure 5 [1]. Scatterplots of measured vs. estimated dry biomass for one validation data set for NDVI, RGBVI, REIP, and GnyLi (exponential model). Pre-anthesis: crosses and solid green line; whole observed period: circles and dashed black line; 1:1 line: light grey.
Figure 1. Correction of Figure 5 [1]. Scatterplots of measured vs. estimated dry biomass for one validation data set for NDVI, RGBVI, REIP, and GnyLi (exponential model). Pre-anthesis: crosses and solid green line; whole observed period: circles and dashed black line; 1:1 line: light grey.
Remotesensing 07 15878 g001
Figure 2. Correction of Figure 6 [1]. Scatterplots of measured vs. estimated fresh biomass for one validation data set for NDVI, RGBVI, REIP, and GnyLi (exponential model). Pre-anthesis: crosses and solid green line; whole observed period: circles and dashed black line; 1:1 line: light grey.
Figure 2. Correction of Figure 6 [1]. Scatterplots of measured vs. estimated fresh biomass for one validation data set for NDVI, RGBVI, REIP, and GnyLi (exponential model). Pre-anthesis: crosses and solid green line; whole observed period: circles and dashed black line; 1:1 line: light grey.
Remotesensing 07 15878 g002
Figure 3. Correction of Figure 7 [1]. Scatterplot for one validation data set for the pre-anthesis (green) and for the whole observed period (black) of the bivariate BRM of PH (circles and solid regression line) and multivariate BRM of PH and GnyLi (crosses and dashed regression line) for fresh biomass (top) and dry biomass (bottom) (all exponential models); 1:1 line: light grey.
Figure 3. Correction of Figure 7 [1]. Scatterplot for one validation data set for the pre-anthesis (green) and for the whole observed period (black) of the bivariate BRM of PH (circles and solid regression line) and multivariate BRM of PH and GnyLi (crosses and dashed regression line) for fresh biomass (top) and dry biomass (bottom) (all exponential models); 1:1 line: light grey.
Remotesensing 07 15878 g003

Reference

  1. Tilly, N.; Aasen, H.; Bareth, G. Fusion of Plant Height and Vegetation Indices for the Estimation of Barley Biomass. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 11449–11480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tilly, N.; Aasen, H.; Bareth, G. Correction: Tilly, N. et al. Fusion of Plant Height and Vegetation Indices for the Estimation of Barley Biomass. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 11449–11480. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 17291-17296. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs71215878

AMA Style

Tilly N, Aasen H, Bareth G. Correction: Tilly, N. et al. Fusion of Plant Height and Vegetation Indices for the Estimation of Barley Biomass. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 11449–11480. Remote Sensing. 2015; 7(12):17291-17296. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs71215878

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tilly, Nora, Helge Aasen, and George Bareth. 2015. "Correction: Tilly, N. et al. Fusion of Plant Height and Vegetation Indices for the Estimation of Barley Biomass. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 11449–11480" Remote Sensing 7, no. 12: 17291-17296. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs71215878

APA Style

Tilly, N., Aasen, H., & Bareth, G. (2015). Correction: Tilly, N. et al. Fusion of Plant Height and Vegetation Indices for the Estimation of Barley Biomass. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 11449–11480. Remote Sensing, 7(12), 17291-17296. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs71215878

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop