| Literature DB >> 29470432 |
Madaín Pérez-Patricio1, Jorge Luis Camas-Anzueto2, Avisaí Sanchez-Alegría3, Abiel Aguilar-González4, Federico Gutiérrez-Miceli5, Elías Escobar-Gómez6, Yvon Voisin7, Carlos Rios-Rojas8, Ruben Grajales-Coutiño9.
Abstract
This work introduces a new vision-based approach for estimating chlorophyll contents in a plant leaf using reflectance and transmittance as base parameters. Images of the top and underside of the leaf are captured. To estimate the base parameters (reflectance/transmittance), a novel optical arrangement is proposed. The chlorophyll content is then estimated by using linear regression where the inputs are the reflectance and transmittance of the leaf. Performance of the proposed method for chlorophyll content estimation was compared with a spectrophotometer and a Soil Plant Analysis Development (SPAD) meter. Chlorophyll content estimation was realized for Lactuca sativa L., Azadirachta indica, Canavalia ensiforme, and Lycopersicon esculentum. Experimental results showed that-in terms of accuracy and processing speed-the proposed algorithm outperformed many of the previous vision-based approach methods that have used SPAD as a reference device. On the other hand, the accuracy reached is 91% for crops such as Azadirachta indica, where the chlorophyll value was obtained using the spectrophotometer. Additionally, it was possible to achieve an estimation of the chlorophyll content in the leaf every 200 ms with a low-cost camera and a simple optical arrangement. This non-destructive method increased accuracy in the chlorophyll content estimation by using an optical arrangement that yielded both the reflectance and transmittance information, while the required hardware is cheap.Entities:
Keywords: biochemical sensor; chlorophyll content estimation; image processing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29470432 PMCID: PMC5855050 DOI: 10.3390/s18020650
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Optical system for the image acquisition: (a) Schematic view, (b) optical system test.
Figure 2Image of the adaxial and abaxial leaf side in Bayer format.
Figure 3Image in RGB format.
Figure 4Leaf and background, separation process.
Figure 5Reflectance according to the chlorophyll content in Soil Plant Analysis Development (SPAD) values.
Figure 6Transmittance according to the chlorophyll content in SPAD values.
Regression models (simple linear regression).
| Independent Variables | Standard Deviation (SPAD) | NRMSE | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.78 | 1.69 | 0.05 | |
| 0.80 | 2.60 | 0.07 | |
| 0.76 | 2.27 | 0.05 | |
| 0.94 | 1.19 | 0.28 | |
| 0.91 | 1.35 | 0.19 | |
| 0.92 | 1.30 | 0.26 |
Multiple linear regression models (using two variables).
| Independent Variables | Standard Deviation (SPAD) | NRMSE | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.97 | 0.83 | 0.36 | |
| 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.43 | |
| 0.92 | 1.34 | 0.25 |
Chlorophyll a, b and total content in Canavalia ensiforme, Azadirachta indica, and Lycopersicon esculentum leaves.
| Mean, std | NRMSE | Mean, std | NRMSE | Mean, std | NRMSE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.16 ± 0.07 | 0.21 ± 0.09 | 0.29 ± 0.05 | |||||||
| Chlorophyll a (µg/mL) | 26.07 ± 14.02 | 0.73 | 0.01 | 16.47 ± 4.34 | 0.91 | 0.02 | 21.97 ± 3.37 | 0.96 | 0.02 |
| Chlorophyll b (µg/mL) | 11.80 ± 4.63 | 0.63 | 0.03 | 6.31 ± 1.73 | 0.98 | 0.30 | 8.12 ± 0.84 | 0.99 | 0.03 |
| Chlorophyll b}total | 37.86 ± 18.49 | 0.66 | 0.15 | 22.77 ± 6.06 | 0.94 | 0.02 | 30.08 ± 3.53 | 0.97 | 0.03 |
Processing speed of the proposed algorithm.
| Case | Processing Time (ms) |
|---|---|
| 150 | |
| 188 |
Vision-based approaches for chlorophyll content estimation.
| Approach | Accuracy ( |
|---|---|
| H. Noh and Q. Zhang (2012), Whole area | 0.86 |
| H. Noh and Q. Zhang (2012), Bright area | 0.87 |
| H. Noh and Q. Zhang (2012), Corn area | 0.85 |
| Tewari et al. (2013) | 0.94 |
| Hao Hu et al. (2014), Green Value | 0.74 |
| Hao Hu et al. (2014), Red Value | 0.75 |
| Pagola et al. (2009), IpcaM4 | 0.92 |
| Pagola et al. (2009), IpcaM2 | 0.92 |
| Moghaddam et al. (2011), MLPN | 0.94 |
| Moghaddam et al. (2011), R, B (regression) | 0.88 |
| Kawashima et al. (1998), NORMALIZED ‘r’ | 0.79 |
| Kawashima et al. (1998), NORMALIZED ‘g’ | 0.76 |
| This work,
| 0.97 |