EGU25-15653, updated on 15 Mar 2025
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-15653
EGU General Assembly 2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Poster | Tuesday, 29 Apr, 16:15–18:00 (CEST), Display time Tuesday, 29 Apr, 14:00–18:00
 
Hall X4, X4.108
Comparing Different Unmixing Methods for weed detection and identification
Inbal Ronay1, Ran Nisim Lati2, and Fadi Kizel1
Inbal Ronay et al.
  • 1Laboratory for Multidimensional Analysis in Remote Sensing - MARS Lab. The Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion
  • 2Department of Plant Pathology and Weed Research, Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Ya'ar Research Center

Herbicides are extensively used for weed management worldwide. However, their use is a significant cause 
of environmental pollution and human health problems. Efficient Site-Specific weed management (SSWM) 
practice attempts to reduce herbicide use and its negative impacts by adjusting herbicide application based 
on weed composition and coverage. Such an application requires high-resolution data in spatial and spectral 
domains, which is not always available. Consequently, Mixed pixels are likely to exist, creating a challenge 
to generate accurate weed maps. In this regard, Spectral Mixture Analysis (SMA) can mitigate this challenge
by exploiting subpixel information. This study assesses the potential benefits of four SMA methods for 
estimating weed coverage of different botanical groups. We examined four methods- Constrained Least 
Squares Unmixing (FCLSU), Sparse Unmixing via variable Splitting and Augmented Lagrangian (SUnSAL), 
Sparse Unmixing via variable Splitting and Augmented Lagrangian and Total variation (SUnSAL-TV) and 
the Vectorized Code Projected Gradient Descent Unmixing (VPGDU). Each suggests a distinct advantage 
for spectral unmixing. We used controlled hyperspectral and multispectral field datasets to compare the four 
methods. The controlled data included weed species characterized by distinct botanical groups, while the 
field dataset included a corn field with weeds at varying densities. We assessed the performance of the 
different methods in estimating weed coverage and composition at various spatial resolutions. Our results
demonstrated the advantages of the total variation regularization of SUnSAL-TV and the superiority of the 
SAM-based method, VPGDU, over other approaches. VPGDU was the best-performing method, with MAE 
values consistently lower than 8.6% at all resolutions, underscoring the advantage of its objective function 
in unmixing weed botanical groups and the significant effect of illumination on the results. This result was 
also consistent in the field data as VPGDU yielded the lowest MAE of 11.95%,

How to cite: Ronay, I., Lati, R. N., and Kizel, F.: Comparing Different Unmixing Methods for weed detection and identification, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-15653, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-15653, 2025.