4.7 Article

Remote Sensing of Explosives-Induced Stress in Plants: Hyperspectral Imaging Analysis for Remote Detection of Unexploded Threats

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 11, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs11151827

关键词

Hyperspectral imaging; plant stress; phytoforensics; explosives; RDX; drought

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [IIA-1355406, IIA-1430427]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Explosives contaminate millions of hectares from various sources (partial detonations, improper storage, and release from production and transport) that can be life-threatening, e.g., landmines and unexploded ordnance. Exposure to and uptake of explosives can also negatively impact plant health, and these factors can be can be remotely sensed. Stress induction was remotely sensed via a whole-plant hyperspectral imaging system as two genotypes of Zea mays, a drought-susceptible hybrid and a drought-tolerant hybrid, and a forage Sorghum bicolor were grown in a greenhouse with one control group, one group maintained at 60% soil field capacity, and a third exposed to 250 mg kg(-1) Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX). Green-Red Vegetation Index (GRVI), Photochemical Reflectance Index (PRI), Modified Red Edge Simple Ratio (MRESR), and Vogelmann Red Edge Index 1 (VREI1) were reduced due to presence of explosives. Principal component analyses of reflectance indices separated plants exposed to RDX from control and drought plants. Reflectance of Z. mays hybrids was increased from RDX in green and red wavelengths, while reduced in near-infrared wavelengths. Drought Z. mays reflectance was lower in green, red, and NIR regions. S. bicolor grown with RDX reflected more in green, red, and NIR wavelengths. The spectra and their derivatives will be beneficial for developing explosive-specific indices to accurately identify plants in contaminated soil. This study is the first to demonstrate potential to delineate subsurface explosives over large areas using remote sensing of vegetation with aerial-based hyperspectral systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据