Comparison of the precision of three commonly used GPS models

ماشین های کشاورزی

Article 19, Volume 6, Issue 1 - Serial Number 11, 2016, Pages 214-223   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jam.v6i1.28704

Authors

E. Chavoshi; J. Amiri Parian^* ; B. Jabbari

Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sine University, Hamedan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Development of science in various fields has caused change in the methods to determine geographical location. Precision farming involves new technology that provides the opportunity for farmers to change in factors such as nutrients, soil moisture available to plants, soil physical and chemical characteristics and other factors with the spatial resolution of less than a centimeter to several meters to monitor and evaluate. GPS receivers based on precision farming operations specified accuracies are used in the following areas: 1) monitoring of crop and soil sampling (less than one meter accuracy) 2) use of fertilizer, pesticide and seed work (less than half a meter accuracy) 3) Transplantation and row cultivation (precision of less than 4 cm) (Perez et al., 2011). In one application of GPS in agriculture, route guidance precision farming tractors in the fields was designed to reduce the transmission error that deviate from the path specified in the range of 50 to 300 mm driver informed and improved way to display (Perez et al., 2011). In another study, the system automatically guidance, based on RTK-GPS technology, precision tillage operations was used between and within the rows very close to the drip irrigation pipe and without damage to their crops at a distance of 50 mm (Abidine et al., 2004). In another study, to compare the accuracy and precision of the receivers, 5 different models of Trimble Mark GPS devices from 15 stations were mapped, the results indicated that minimum error was related to Geo XT model with an accuracy of 91 cm and maximum error was related to Pharos model with an accuracy of 5.62 m (Kindra et al., 2006).
Due to the increasing use of GPS receivers in agriculture as well as the lack of trust on the real accuracy and precision of receivers, this study aimed to compare the positioning accuracy and precision of three commonly used GPS receivers models used to specify receivers with the lowest error for precision farming operations as well as the efficiency of the work done in different situations.
Materials and Methods: In this study, three commonly used GPS models belong to GARMIN CO. were selected for comparison. This company is the world biggest manufacturer of GPS device. Three models include eTrex VISTA, MAP 60 csx and MAP 78s that in recent years have been the most widely used receivers in precision agriculture (Figure 1, Table 1). To assess the accuracy and precision of the receivers, 9 recording stations were selected in a field (20×20 m2) and detailed mapping by the odolite camera under high precision compass networks and regular conditions (figure 2) was identified. To reduce the error of multi-path, a relatively open and unobstructed place in the Abbas Abad field of Bu-Ali Sina University were considered. This study was conducted in a Completely Randomized Design (CRD) with factorial analysis to examine three factors, at three levels, each in three replication including weather conditions (clear, partially cloudy and full cloudy sky), time of day (9 am, 12 am and 4 pm) and three different models of receiver (MAP 60 csx, eTrex VISTA and MAP 78s), in 9 local stations. Difference of deviation value at each station with the mean value of latitude and longitude recorded at same station was used to precision calculate on (equation 1) and the difference of deviation value at each station with a deviation of the actual position latitude and longitude of the same station was used to calculate the accuracy (equation 2). The base station position (No.1) was determined with an accurately large-scale map. Then, the positions of other stations were defined with camera and compass in exact rectangular grid by underlying base station. Mean error for each station using equation (3) and the precision and accuracy and the definitions of each receiver was calculated.
Results and Discussion: To display the geographical distribution stations and the registered location data for GPS devices ArcView software (v3.3) was used (Fig.3). The real location of stations and registered by each receiver position has been determined. Information recorded in Map Source software, including all longitude and latitudes registered for each station and receiver were transferred to Excel Software (2007). Table 2 shows the mean precision values recorded in each weather conditions. The results obtained by equation 1 (the mean error at each station) showed that the GPS MAP 78s model has the lowest error of 91 cm, VISTA eTrex model has a maximum error of 4.7 meters and MAP 60 csx model has mean error of about 2.64 meters. The analysis of variance of models and weather conditions and the time of day with the interactions between factors have been shown in Table 3. Results showed that there is significant difference (0.01 <P value) between models, but there is no significant difference between the date and time positioning precision of different receivers models. Investigating of the interactions between the receiver models and the weather conditions showed no significant effect of them and the interaction between the receiver models and the measured time difference is not significant. These results showed that weather conditions and time of day is the same effect on positioning precision of GPS receivers used in this research. These results were consistent with the study of Jose and colleagues (Jose et al., 2006). The mean Comparison test of LSD (at 5% level) for the accuracy and precision of the models showed the significant difference for all models (Table 4). Figures 4 and 5 respectively show the accuracy and precision of three models of GPS receiver at different times of day and different weather conditions.
Conclusions: Effect of daylight hours on positioning precision was very low; also the effect of different weather conditions may reduce the accuracy of GPS positioning to size of few centimeters. Overall, the results indicated that between the three factors include the models, the effects of weather and time only receiver models had significant effect in precision. The lowest error between the models was belonged to MAP 78s (91 cm) and the maximum error was belonged to eTrex VISTA model with the 4.7 m. In addition, results of this study showed that the correct application of GPS receivers in different conditions and select of appropriate receiver can be reduced positioning error considerably. According to the result the MAP 78s GPS receiver could be used for precision farming operations in the range of 1 to 3 meter such as crop monitoring and soil sampling and the other receivers (eTrex VISTA and MAP 60 csx) could be used in operations that require less precision (range of 3 to 5 meters).

Keywords

GPS receiver; Positioning system; Precision farming; Weather condition

References

1. Abidine, A. Z., B. C. Heidman, S. K. Upadhyaya, and D. J. Hills. 2004. Auto guidance system operated at high speed causes almost no tomato damage. California Agriculture 58: 44-47.

2. Aassi, M. R. 2007. General Surveying. Sharif University. Tehran. (In Farsi).

3. Arslan, S., and T. S. Colvin. 2002. An evaluation of the response of yield monitors and combines to varying yields. Precision Agriculture 3: 107-122.

4. Goudarzi mehr, S., and H. R. Matin far. 2010. Remote sensing technology and its capabilities in precision agriculture. Second National Conference on Agriculture and Sustainable Development (Opportunities and challenges). Islamic Azad University of Shiraz. (In Farsi).

5. Jose, R., M. Rodriguez, A. Flor, E. Sanz, and A. Gavela. 2006. Comparison of GPS receiver accuracy and precision in forest environments: Practical recommendations regarding methods and receiver selection. 23rd FIG Conference, Munich, Germany.

6. Keicher, R., and H. Seufert. 2000. Automatic guidance for agricultural vehicles in Europe. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 25: 169-194.

7. Kindra, S., T. Windholz, and K. Weber. 2006 .Comparing GPS Receivers: A Field Study. URISA Journal 18: 21-26.

8. Nationa Cartographic Center. 2013. Hoda National System. Available from: http://hodasystem.net/? page_id=131.

9. Perez, M., J. Ruiz, J. Carballio, and J. Agura. 2011. Assessing of correction signal for assisted guidance systems in agricultural vehicles. Precision Agriculture 12: 639-652.

10. Garmin Ltd. 2010. Garmin GPS MAP78 series owner’s manual. Garmin international Inc.