| Literature DB >> 29968798 |
Xingang Xu1,2, Guijun Yang3,4, Xiaodong Yang3,4, Zhenhai Li3,4, Haikuan Feng3,4, Bo Xu3,4, Xiaoqing Zhao3,4.
Abstract
Ratio of carbon toEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29968798 PMCID: PMC6030090 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-28351-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Comparison between canopy reflectance (a) and normalized reflectance (b) that were derived from barley (B) and wheat (W) samples with the same C/N level and cultivar and measured in full-light and subdued illumination conditions, respectively.
Figure 2Canopy spectral curves from four different C/N levels ranging from C/N1 to C/N4, 7.5, 9.8, 13.3 and 16.6, respectively. (a) Comparison of the whole spectral curves with four C/N levels. (b,c) The enlarged sketch simply describing the variational features of spectral curves within visible region. (d,e) The sketch by approximating spectral curve segments into straight line in NIR region.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of slope features extracted from spectral curves.
Definitions of slope features from hyperspectral reflectance curves proposed in this study.
| Name | Definition |
|---|---|
|
| Slope within the spectral range of 400–500 nm, namely |
|
| Slope |
|
| Slope |
|
| Slope |
|
| Slope |
|
| Slope |
|
| Slope |
Figure 4Comparison of change tendencies between C/N, LNC and LCC.
Figure 5Quantitative relationships between C/N, LNC and LCC.
Figure 6Correlation coefficients between leaf C/N and canopy reflectance.
Summary of spectral indices analyzed in the study.
| Indices | Formulas | References |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
|
| ( | Vogelmann |
|
| ( | Gitelson |
|
| ||
|
| Xue | |
| Red edge position based on linear extrapolation method | Cho | |
|
| (1 + 0.45)( | Reyniers |
|
| ( | Chen |
|
| Gupta | |
| Sum of 1st derivative within the red edge(680~780 nm) divided by sum of 1st derivative within the blue edge (490~530 nm)) | Gong | |
|
| Maximum of 1st derivative within the red edge (680~780 nm) | Gong |
| MCARI: [( | Eitel | |
|
| ||
|
| ( | Wu |
| Haboudane | ||
|
| ( | Sims & Gamon[ |
|
| [( | Daughtry |
|
| ( | Peñuelas |
|
| ( | Datt[ |
| Gitelson | ||
| ( | Hansen | |
|
| ( | Rouse |
|
| ( | Dash & Curran[ |
|
| ( | Fitzgerald |
|
| ( | Feng |
# denotes named by this study; R denotes reflectance at band i (nanometer).
Regression analyses between slope features, spectral indices and leaf C/N.
| Slope features | Wheat (n = 120) | Barley (n = 38) | Wheat and barley (n = 158) | spectral indices | Wheat (n = 120) | Barley (n = 38) | Wheat and barley (n = 158) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| RMSE |
| RMSE |
| RMSE |
| RMSE |
| RMSE |
| RMSE | ||
|
| 0.40 | 1.51 | 0.69 | 1.73 | — | — |
| 0.33 | 1.60 | 0.66 | 1.84 | 0.49 | 1.75 |
|
| 0.31 | 1.62 | — | — | — | — |
| 0.32 | 1.60 | 0.62 | 1.93 | 0.49 | 1.73 |
|
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 0.29 | 1.63 | 0.57 | 2.04 | 0.35 | 1.94 |
|
| 0.39 | 1.52 | 0.54 | 2.12 | 0.29 | 2.04 | 0.47 | 1.42 | 0.55 | 2.10 | 0.44 | 1.81 | |
|
| 0.50 | 1.38 | 0.52 | 2.16 | — | — |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| — | — | 0.45 | 2.33 | — | — |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 0.44 | 1.45 | 0.64 | 1.88 | 0.56 | 1.61 |
| 0.40 | 1.50 | 0.66 | 1.81 | 0.39 | 1.89 | 0.39 | 1.52 | 0.61 | 1.96 | 0.51 | 1.68 | ||
| 0.43 | 1.47 | 0.59 | 2.00 | 0.54 | 1.64 |
| 0.44 | 1.45 | 0.68 | 1.78 | — | — | |
| 0.51 | 1.37 | — | — | — | — | 0.28 | 1.65 | — | — | 0.28 | 2.05 | ||
| 0.56 | 1.29 | 0.52 | 2.15 | 0.37 | 1.93 |
| 0.41 | 1.49 | 0.63 | 1.90 | 0.52 | 1.67 | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 0.42 | 1.48 | 0.64 | 1.88 | 0.55 | 1.63 | |
| ( | 0.31 | 1.62 | 0.59 | 2.00 | 0.46 | 1.77 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| ( | 0.63 | 1.19 | 0.68 | 1.78 | 0.65 | 1.43 |
| — | — | 0.70 | 1.71 | — | — |
| ( | — | — | 0.51 | 2.19 | 0.31 | 2.03 |
| 0.30 | 1.62 | 0.58 | 2.03 | 0.46 | 1.78 |
| ( | 0.43 | 1.47 | 0.60 | 1.96 | 0.48 | 1.74 | 0.39 | 1.52 | 0.64 | 1.87 | 0.54 | 1.65 | |
| ( | 0.44 | 1.46 | 0.61 | 1.95 | 0.54 | 1.64 | 0.27 | 1.67 | — | — | 0.30 | 2.03 | |
| ( | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 0.24 | 1.69 | 0.49 | 2.22 | 0.33 | 1.98 |
| ( | 0.61 | 1.23 | 0.68 | 1.78 | 0.43 | 1.82 |
| 0.49 | 1.39 | 0.65 | 1.85 | 0.58 | 1.57 |
| ( | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 0.36 | 1.55 | 0.58 | 2.02 | 0.49 | 1.73 |
| ( | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 0.38 | 1.53 | 0.59 | 2.00 | 0.51 | 1.69 |
Linear, exponential and logarithm model were applied to make fit, and the results (R2 and RMSE) of best fit for each variable were showed in the table.
— means there is no significant correlation (p < 0.01).
Figure 7Crop species effects on the correlations between C/N and different types of slope features extracted from wheat and barley data: (a) K, (b) K, (c) K, (d) K/K, (e) K/K, (f) (K + K)/(2*K).
Figure 8Regression analysis results between leaf C/N and spectral variables derived from wheat and barley data: (a) slope feature (K + K)/(2*K), (b) spectral index MTCI.
Figure 9Noise equivalent of ∆C/N for typical slope features and spectral indices evaluated.
Figure 10Changes of R2 and RMSE when using BB to select the optimal subsets with different feature numbers: −Wh means wheat, −Ba barley, and −Sco the combined dataset using slope features respectively, and −Ico denotes the combined dataset for spectral indices.
The analyses of C/N estimation using the models of optimal feature subsets from wheat, barley and combined dataset, respectively.
| Model names | Optimal feature subset (feature number = 4) | Wheat and barley | Wheat | Warley | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| RMSE |
| RMSE |
| RMSE | ||
| BB-wh | ( | 0.69 | 1.67 | 0.85 | 0.74 | — | — |
| BB-ba | — | — | — | — | 0.85 | 1.22 | |
| BB-Sco | ( | 0.81 | 1.07 | 0.85 | 0.76 | 0.70 | 1.71 |
| BB-Ico | 0.83 | 0.99 | 0.86 | 0.73 | 0.76 | 1.54 | |
— means there is no significant correlation (p < 0.01). BB-wh denotes the model of optimal subset output by BB for wheat, BB-ba for barley, and BB-Sco for the combined dataset using slope features respectively, BB-Ico means the model for the combined dataset using spectral indices.
Figure 11Relationships between the observed C/N and the estimated values using slope features: (a,d and e) denote the results of using the optimal slope feature models based on BB for combined, wheat and barley datasets, respectively, (b and c) indicate that of applying the model constructed by combined dataset to estimate C/N in wheat and barley, respectively.