| Literature DB >> 29527217 |
Mónica Herrero-Huerta1,2,3, Roderik Lindenbergh1, Wolfgang Gard4.
Abstract
Plant leaf movement is induced by some combination of different external and internal stimuli. Detailed geometric characterization of such movement is expected to improve understanding of these mechanisms. A metric high-quality, non-invasive and innovative sensor system to analyze plant movement is Terrestrial LiDAR (TLiDAR). This technique has an active sensor and is, therefore, independent of light conditions, able to obtain accurate high spatial and temporal resolution point clouds. In this study, a movement parameterization approach of leaf plants based on TLiDAR is introduced. For this purpose, two Calathea roseopicta plants were scanned in an indoor environment during 2 full-days, 1 day in natural light conditions and the other in darkness. The methodology to estimate leaf movement is based on segmenting individual leaves using an octree-based 3D-grid and monitoring the changes in their orientation by Principal Component Analysis. Additionally, canopy variations of the plant as a whole were characterized by a convex-hull approach. As a result, 9 leaves in plant 1 and 11 leaves in plant 2 were automatically detected with a global accuracy of 93.57 and 87.34%, respectively, compared to a manual detection. Regarding plant 1, in natural light conditions, the displacement average of the leaves between 7.00 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. was 3.67 cm as estimated using so-called deviation maps. The maximum displacement was 7.92 cm. In addition, the orientation changes of each leaf within a day were analyzed. The maximum variation in the vertical angle was 69.6° from 12.30 to 6.00 p.m. In darkness, the displacements were smaller and showed a different orientation pattern. The canopy volume of plant 1 changed more in the morning (4.42 dm3) than in the afternoon (2.57 dm3). The results of plant 2 largely confirmed the results of the first plant and were added to check the robustness of the methodology. The results show how to quantify leaf orientation variation and leaf movements along a day at mm accuracy in different light conditions. This confirms the feasibility of the proposed methodology to robustly analyse leaf movements.Entities:
Keywords: indoor; leaf movements; plants; temporal series; terrestrial LiDAR
Year: 2018 PMID: 29527217 PMCID: PMC5829619 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1Picture of Calathea roseopicta plant 2.
Overview of the acquired data.
| A | Natural light | 1 | 98,868 | 94,043 | 93,235 |
| 2 | 84,966 | 82,727 | 88,597 | ||
| B | Darkness | 1 | 94,355 | 96,456 | 95,765 |
| 2 | 81,916 | 82,254 | 77,008 | ||
Figure 2Calculation of the orientation variation of each leaf along the time.
Room conditions during test A and B [sunrise and sunset times provided in GMT(+1)].
| A | 02/12/2016 | 8:30 a.m | 16:34 p.m | 21.2° | 47.4 % |
| B | 05/12/2016 | 8:34 a.m | 16:32 p.m | 21.2° | 32.2 % |
Figure 3Scans at 7.00 a.m. and at 12.30 p.m. of plant 1 during test A: superimposed (7.00 a.m. in black color and 12.30 p.m. in green color) (A) and deviation map (B).
Figure 4Individual leaves of plant 1 (A) and plant 2 (B) extracted using an octree-based segmentation (leaves in different colors) and consecutive orientation estimation by PCA (normal vector in red of each leaf).
Figure 5Movement pattern from individual leaves of plant 1, based on the angle orientation change within sampling periods: during test A (A) and during test B (B) [azimuth changes on x axis and vertical angle changes on y axis from 7.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. (beginning of the arrow) and from 12.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. (end of the arrow)].
Results of orientation variation from plant 2 during test A and B.
| A | #1 | −58° | −54° | −56° | −64° |
| #2 | 47° | −22° | 51° | 27° | |
| #3 | 20° | 69° | −3° | −53° | |
| #4 | −7° | 15° | −20° | −24° | |
| #5 | −42° | 18° | 45° | −14° | |
| #6 | −83° | 24° | −88° | −21° | |
| #7 | −11° | −72° | −32° | −10° | |
| #8 | −55° | 81° | −70° | −64° | |
| #9 | 31° | 31° | 34° | −55° | |
| #10 | 13° | −13° | −45° | −39° | |
| #11 | −7° | −2° | 60° | −47° | |
| B | #1 | −63° | 75° | 75° | −71° |
| #2 | 19° | −18° | 35° | 49° | |
| #3 | −70° | 7° | 85° | −45° | |
| #4 | 52° | 37° | 34° | −52° | |
| #5 | −5° | −18° | 5° | −28° | |
| #6 | 9° | 47° | 9° | 58° | |
| #7 | −70° | −79° | −50° | 83° | |
| #8 | 6° | 81° | 46° | 61° | |
| #9 | 18° | −23° | −39° | 12° | |
| #10 | 79° | 28° | −88° | 1° | |
| #11 | 0° | 18° | 63° | 36° | |
Figure 6Canopy point cloud at 12.30 p.m. (A) and at 6.00 p.m. (B) during test A from plant 1, together with its convex hull plotted by lines in random colors depending on the face they belong to. Both convex hulls superimposed, one in lines and the other in solid (C).
Canopy volume analysis by convex-hull.
| A | 1 | 33.12 | 28.70 | 31.27 | −4.42 | 2.57 |
| B | 1 | 30.6 | 30.49 | 28.96 | −0.16 | −1.53 |
| A | 2 | 37.24 | 41.98 | 25.00 | 4.74 | −16.98 |
| B | 2 | 45.52 | 43.36 | 44.80 | −2.16 | 1.44 |