| Literature DB >> 22163962 |
Valentina Ulissi1, Francesca Antonucci, Paolo Benincasa, Michela Farneselli, Giacomo Tosti, Marcello Guiducci, Francesco Tei, Corrado Costa, Federico Pallottino, Luigi Pari, Paolo Menesatti.
Abstract
Nitrogen concentration in plants is normally determined by expensive and time consuming chemical analyses. As an alternative, chlorophyll meter readings and N-NO(3) concentration determination in petiole sap were proposed, but these assays are not always satisfactory. Spectral reflectance values of tomato leaves obtained by visible-near infrared spectrophotometry are reported to be a powerful tool for the diagnosis of plant nutritional status. The aim of the study was to evaluate the possibility and the accuracy of the estimation of tomato leaf nitrogen concentration performed through a rapid, portable and non-destructive system, in comparison with chemical standard analyses, chlorophyll meter readings and N-NO(3) concentration in petiole sap. Mean reflectance leaf values were compared to each reference chemical value by partial least squares chemometric multivariate methods. The correlation between predicted values from spectral reflectance analysis and the observed chemical values showed in the independent test highly significant correlation coefficient (r = 0.94). The utilization of the proposed system, increasing efficiency, allows better knowledge of nutritional status of tomato plants, with more detailed and sharp information and on wider areas. More detailed information both in space and time is an essential tool to increase and stabilize crop quality levels and to optimize the nutrient use efficiency.Entities:
Keywords: SAP test; SPAD chlorophyll meter readings; VIS-NIR; chemometry; leaf analysis; non-destructive; nutritional status; spectrophotometry; tomato leaf
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22163962 PMCID: PMC3231448 DOI: 10.3390/s110606411
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Spectral data chemometric analysis procedure.
List of the different X and Y pre-processing techniques applied in the analysis.
| None | No pre-processing |
| Log 1/R | Transformation of reflectance in absorbance following log(1/R) formula |
| Diff1 | differences between adjacent variables (approximate derivatives) |
| Log10 | Log 10 |
| logdecay | Log Decay Scaling |
| Baseline | Baseline (Weighted Least Squares) |
| Abs | Takes the absolute value of the data |
| Autoscale | Centres columns to zero mean and scales to unit variance |
| Detrend | Remove a linear trend |
| GLS Weighting | Generalized Least Squares Weighting |
| Groupscale | Group/block scaling |
| mean centre | Centre columns to have zero mean |
| msc (mean) | Multiplicative scatter correction with offset, the mean is the reference spectrum |
| median centre | Centre columns to have zero median |
| Normalize | Normalization of the rows |
| Osc | Orthogonal Signal Correction |
| Sg | Savitsky-Golay smoothing and derivatives |
| Snv | Standard Normal Deviate |
| Centering | Multiway Center |
| Scaling | Multiway Scale |
| sqmnsc | Scale each variable by the square root of its mean |
Figure 2.Cumulated nitrogen concentration frequency chemically measured in relation to the three different sampling periods (s.p. 1st, 2nd and 3rd) and the three thresholds (vertical lines) extracted by the critical-N curve proposed by Tei et al. [9].
Results of linear regression prediction of N concentration in tomato leaves from SPAD (chlorophyll meter readings) and SAP (measurements of N-NO3 concentration in petiole) analysis. Efficiency parameters reported: correlation coefficient (r), Standard Error of Prediction (SEP), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Squared bias (SB), nonunity (NU) and lack of correlation (LC).
| n° samples | 100 | 100 |
| 0.5383 | 0.5638 | |
| SEP | 0.6260 | 0.6135 |
| RMSE | 0.3918 | 0.3763 |
| n° samples | 17 | 17 |
| 0.5589 | 0.5594 | |
| SEP | 0.7169 | 0.7537 |
| RMSE | 0.6420 | 0.6978 |
| SB | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| NU | 0.0003 | 0.0517 |
| LC | 0.4834 | 0.483 |
Figure 3.The correlation between measured and predicted values of N of SPAD (chlorophyll meter readings) and SAP (measurements of N-NO3 concentration in petiole) analysis in the test represented by the 15% of the whole sample dataset extracted by the SPXY (sample set partitioning based on joint X- and Y-blocks) method.
Results of Partial Least Squares (PLS) multivariate analysis on the four different datasets (W = whole dataset, 125 vars; R1 = restricted dataset, first 92 vars, 400–694 nm; R2 = restricted dataset, 46 vars, 400–694 nm, represented by the mean values of each single consecutive pair of steps; R3 = restricted dataset, 62 vars, 496–694 nm) predicting the N concentration in tomato leaves from spectral reflectance analysis. In the table are reported: number of Latent Vectors (LV), Root mean square error in calibration (RMSEC) and validation (RMSECV), correlation coefficient (r), Standard Error of Prediction (SEP) and Root Mean Squares Error (RMSE).
| n° total samples | 117 | 117 | 117 | 117 |
| n° LV | 4 | 8 | 11 | 11 |
| First pre-processing X-block | Log1/R | None | Log1/R | Log1/R |
| Second pre-processing X-block | sg | snv | sg | snv |
| Pre-processing Y-block | none | autoscale | autoscale | none |
| RMSEC | 0.4942 | 0.5744 | 0.6079 | 0.4294 |
| RMSECV | 0.5120 | 0.7990 | 0.7924 | 0.5700 |
| n° samples | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 0.7436 | 0.8165 | 0.7917 | 0.8134 | |
| SEP | 0.4967 | 0.4308 | 0.4533 | 0.4316 |
| RMSE | 0.4942 | 0.4286 | 0.4510 | 0.4294 |
| n° samples | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 |
| 0.8856 | 0.8921 | 0.9244 | 0.9414 | |
| SEP | 0.4186 | 0.4255 | 0.3597 | 0.3466 |
| RMSE | 0.4271 | 0.6460 | 0.5997 | 0.4054 |