| Literature DB >> 25549353 |
Ke-Qiang Yu1, Yan-Ru Zhao1, Xiao-Li Li2, Yong-Ni Shao2, Fei Liu2, Yong He2.
Abstract
Visible/near-infrared (Vis/ne">NIR) hyperspectral imaging was employed to determine the spatial distribution of total nitrogen in pepper plant. Hyperspectral images of samples (leaves, stems, and roots of pepper plants) were acquired and their total nitrogen contents (TNCs) were measured using Dumas combustion method. Mean spectra of all samples were extracted from regions of interest (ROIs) in hyperspectral images. Random frog (RF) algorithm was implemented to select important wavelengths which carried effective information for predicting the TNCs in leaf, stem, root, and whole-plant (leaf-stem-root), respectively. Based on full spectra and the selected important wavelengths, the quantitative relationships between spectral data and the corresponding TNCs in organs (leaf, stem, and root) and whole-plant (leaf-stem-root) were separately developed using partial least-squares regression (PLSR). As a result, the PLSR model built by the important wavelengths for predicting TNCs in whole-plant (leaf-stem-root) offered a promising result of correlation coefficient (R) for prediction (RP = 0.876) and root mean square error (RMSE) for prediction (RMSEP = 0.426%). Finally, the TNC of each pixel within ROI of the sample was estimated to generate the spatial distribution map of TNC in pepper plant. The achievements of the research indicated that hyperspectral imaging is promising and presents a powerful potential to determine nitrogen contents spatial distribution in pepper plant.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25549353 PMCID: PMC4280196 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116205
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Positions of sampled leaf, stem, and root samples in one exemplary pepper plant.
Parameters of hyperspectral imaging device for acquisition of images.
| Parameters | Corresponding values |
| Spectral range | 380–1,030 nm |
| Spectral resolution | 2.8 nm |
| Moving speed of the mobile platform | 2.1 mm/s |
| Spatial dimension of images | 672×512 (spatial × spectral) pixels |
| Exposure time | 0.008 s |
| The distance from lens to sample | 295 mm |
Parameters for running random frog.
| Parameters | Function | Value |
| T | number of iterations | 10,000 |
| Q | number of variables in the initialized variable set | 50 |
|
| control variance of a normal distribution | 0.3 |
|
| a coefficient explained in step 2 | 3 |
|
| represent the upper bound of the probability | 0.1 |
Figure 2The flowchart of the Random frog algorithm from Li et al. [45].
Statistic results of all samples’ TNCs-DC.
| Samples | Positions | N. | Mean (%) ± S. D. |
| Leaf | Upper | 40 | 4.053±0.498a |
| Middle | 40 | 3.129±0.321b | |
| Lower | 40 | 2.703±0.325c | |
| Stem | Upper | 40 | 1.390±0.366a |
| Middle | 40 | 0.849±0.175b | |
| Lower | 40 | 0.736±0.102c | |
| Leaf | All | 120 | 3.295±0.686a |
| Stem | All | 120 | 0.992±0.374c |
| Root | All | 40 | 1.186±0.143b |
| Leaf-root-stem | All | 280 | 2.007±1.231 |
Note: Different letters (a, b, c) in the same column indicate statistical significance at the 5% level by Tamhane’s T2 test.
N.: Number of samples;
S. D.: Standard deviation of the group.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to generate these results, which were obtained using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 20.0, IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, USA). The results of TNCs-DC exhibited significant differences between groups (leaf, stem, and root) and within groups (leaves/stems in different positions).
Summary of statistical analyses of TNCs-DC in calibration and prediction sets.
| Samples | Calibration set | Prediction set | ||||||
| N. | Max. | Min. | Mean (%) ± S.D. | N. | Max. | Min. | Mean (%) ± S.D. | |
| Leaf | 90 | 4.871 | 2.264 | 3.357±0.701 | 30 | 4.731 | 2.398 | 3.108±0.612 |
| Root | 30 | 1.470 | 0.847 | 1.183±0.156 | 10 | 1.301 | 1.035 | 1.194±0.103 |
| Stem | 90 | 2.135 | 0.556 | 1.040±0.403 | 30 | 1.636 | 0.599 | 0.849±0.218 |
| All | 210 | 4.871 | 0.556 | 2.114±1.292 | 70 | 4.731 | 0.599 | 1.927±1.218 |
Note:
N.: Number of samples;
S. D.: Standard deviation of the group;
Max.: Maximum;
Min.: Minimum;
Calibrations set with wide variation range of TNCs-DC could benefit for building robust models. Cross-validation set had the same results with the calibration set, which were not motioned in this table. In this study, leave-one-out cross-validation (one sample randomly chosen from calibration set was retained at a time and the rest of samples in calibration set were used to build the model) was used to verify the reproducibility and robustness of models.
Figure 3Spectral curves of all pepper plant samples covering the range of 420–1,000 nm.
(a) mean spectral reflectance curves of all leaves and stems in upper, middle, and lower positions; (b) mean spectral reflectance and standard deviation (SD) of leaves, stems, and roots across all samples.
Figure 4Selection probability (SP) of each wavelength averaged over 50 runs of Random frog for TNCs-HSI prediction of (a) leaves, (b) stems, (c) roots, and (d) whole-plant samples (leaf-stem-root).
Important wavelengths for predicting TNCs in leaves, stems, roots, and whole-plant (leaf-stem-root) based on Random frog (RF).
| Samples | Important wavelength (nm) |
| Leaves | 980, 848, 928, 941, 647, 649, 648, 794, 973, 965 |
| Stems | 475, 932, 788, 844, 804, 792, 987, 759, 951 |
| Roots | 445, 495, 444, 575, 448, 446, 580 |
| Whole-plant | 992, 756, 749, 918, 909, 921, 759, 912 |
Results of PLSR models for TNCs-HSI analysis based on full spectra (F-PLSR) and the selected important wavelengths (RF-PLSR).
| Samples | Models | N. | LVs | Calibration | Cross-Validation | Prediction | |||
| RC | RMSEC (%) | RCV | RMSECV (%) | RP | RMSEP (%) | ||||
| Leaf | F-PLSR | 460 | 17 | 0.974 | 0.156 | 0.924 | 0.269 | 0.934 | 0.223 |
| RF-PLSR | 10 | 3 | 0.817 | 0.401 | 0.798 | 0.420 | 0.828 | 0.356 | |
| Stem | F-PLSR | 460 | 16 | 0.987 | 0.063 | 0.917 | 0.168 | 0.930 | 0.084 |
| RF-PLSR | 9 | 5 | 0.820 | 0.229 | 0.773 | 0.254 | 0.724 | 0.157 | |
| Root | F-PLSR | 460 | 11 | 0.992 | 0.020 | 0.931 | 0.064 | 0.915 | 0.045 |
| RF-PLSR | 7 | 7 | 0.773 | 0.097 | 0.592 | 0.130 | 0.797 | 0.068 | |
| Whole-plant | F-PLSR | 460 | 6 | 0.904 | 0.388 | 0.893 | 0.409 | 0.908 | 0.351 |
| RF-PLSR | 8 | 4 | 0.878 | 0.451 | 0.874 | 0.468 | 0.876 | 0.426 | |
Note:
N.: Number of wavelengths used for analysis;
F-PLSR models meant the PLSR models established by using full spectra;
RF-PLSR models represented the PLSR models built by important wavelengths selected by RF algorithm. LVs, RC, RMSEC, RCV, RMSECV, RP, and RMSEP could be found in the text.
Figure 5Spatial distribution maps of TNCs-HSI in samples of an exemplary tested pepper plant included six leaves, three stems, and one root, respectively.
TNCs-HSI of samples in hyperspectral images were computed based on linear function (2) and TNCs-HSI distribution was achieved in MATLAB software. The numbers accompanying each sample map denote the respective TNC-DC value.