| Literature DB >> 31146350 |
Xin Xiong1, Jingjin Zhang2, Doudou Guo3, Liying Chang4, Danfeng Huang5.
Abstract
Monitoring plant nitrogen (N) in a timely way and accurately is critical for precision fertilization. The imaging technology based on visible light is relatively inexpensive and ubiquitous, and open-source analysis tools have proliferated. In this study, texture- and geometry-related phenotyping combined with color properties were investigated for their potential use in evaluating N in pakchoi (Brassica campestris ssp. chinensis L.). Potted pakchoi treated with four levels of N were cultivated in a greenhouse. Their top-view images were acquired using a camera at six growth stages. The corresponding plant N concentration was determined destructively. The quantitative relationships between the nitrogen nutrition index (NNI) and the image-based phenotyping features were established using the following algorithms: random forest (RF), support vector regression (SVR), and neural network (NN). The results showed the full model based on the color, texture, and geometry-related features outperforms the model based on only the color-related feature in predicting the NNI. The RF full model exhibited the most robust performance in both the seedling and harvest stages, reaching prediction accuracies of 0.823 and 0.943, respectively. The high prediction accuracy of the model allows for a low-cost, non-destructive monitoring of N in the field of precision crop management.Entities:
Keywords: leafy vegetable; machine learning; nitrogen nutrition index; phenotyping; precision fertilization; visible light imaging
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31146350 PMCID: PMC6603544 DOI: 10.3390/s19112448
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Image acquisition platform.
Figure 2Image processing flow.
Figure 3The pakchoi images at different growth periods (0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 days after the first N application, respectively).
Phenotypic features extracted from images in pakchoi.
| Category | Trait Name | Description | No. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Color | *R_mean, R_std, *R_median, R_ range, R_coefficient of variation | Statistics in the red range of the RGB color space | 1–5 |
| *G_mean, G_std, *G_median, G_ range, G_coefficient of variation | Statistics in the green range of the RGB color space | 6–10 | |
| *B_mean, B_std, *B_median, B_ range, B_coefficient of variation | Statistics in the blue range of the RGB color space | 11–15 | |
| *L_mean, L_std, *L_median, L_ range, L_coefficient of variation | Statistics of L channel in LAB color space | 16–20 | |
| a_mean, a_std, a_median, a_ range, a_coefficient of variation | Statistics of A channel in LAB color space | 21–25 | |
| *b_mean, b_std, *b_median, b_ range, b_coefficient of variation | Statistics of B channel in LAB color space | 26–30 | |
| *H_mean, H_std, *H_median, H_ range, H_coefficient of variation | Statistics of H in HSV color space | 31–35 | |
| *S_mean, S_std, *S_median, S_ range, S_coefficient of variation | Statistics of S in HSV color space | 36–40 | |
| *V_mean, V_std, *V_median, V_ range, V_coefficient of variation | Statistics of V in HSV color space | 41–45 | |
| Texture | contrast | Definition and grooving depth of texture | 46 |
| dissimilarity | The difference of grey scale | 47 | |
| *homogeneity | The local changes of image texture | 48 | |
| *energy | The degree of thickness and uniformity for texture | 49 | |
| correlation | The correlation of the local grey scale | 50 | |
| *ASM | Angular second moment | 51 | |
| Morphology | *contour_area | Area of plant contour | 52 |
| perimeter | The length of plant contour | 53 | |
| w | The width of the bounding box | 54 | |
| h | The height of the bounding box | 55 | |
| *hull_area | Convex hull area (mm2) | 56 | |
| _w | The width of the minimum circumscribed rectangle | 57 | |
| _h | The height of the minimum circumscribed rectangle | 58 | |
| MA | The macro axis of the ellipse | 59 | |
| ma | The minor axis of the ellipse | 60 | |
| *r | The radius of the minimum circumscribed circle | 61 | |
| *equivalent_diameter | The diameter of a circle equal to the contour area | 62 | |
| aspect_ration | The width-height ratio of the bounding box | 63 | |
| extent | The area ratio between contour and bounding box | 64 | |
| solidity | The area ratio between contour and convex hull | 65 |
Note:(1) _mean, _std, _median, _range, and _coefficient of variation represent mean, standard deviation, median, range and coefficient of variation, respectively. (2) The traits marked with asterisks were selected to develop a model. (3) RGB (Red, Green, Blue), LAB ( L is luminosity, A is the range from magenta to green, and B is the range from yellow to blue, and HSV ( Hue, Saturation, Value)
Yield and quality of pakchoi after 42 days of cultivation.
| Treatments | Yield (g·plant−1) | Chlorophyll (μg·cm−2) | Flavonol Index | Nitrate (mg·kg−1 FW) | Soluble Protein (mg·g−1 FW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 6.04 ± 0.45d | 28.70 ± 1.67b | 1.37 ± 0.26a | 200.92 ± 3.51c | 5.21 ± 0.58c |
| T1 | 27.65 ± 0.28a | 32.98 ± 4.98a | 0.74 ± 0.11b | 271.47 ± 23.35b | 35.10 ± 1.97a |
| T2 | 23.88 ± 0.04b | 32.17 ± 2.78a | 0.80 ± 0.11b | 298.31 ± 19.16b | 31.63 ± 1.91b |
| T3 | 21.37 ± 0.34c | 33.08 ± 2.75a | 0.78 ± 0.11b | 364.25 ± 25.34a | 30.47 ± 2.61b |
Note: Data of the table represent average value ± standard deviation (n = 3) and those with the different letters in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Accumulation of dry weight (g·plant−1) and nitrogen concentration (g·kg−1 DW) in shoot.
| Index | Treatment | Days after Transplant (d) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 14 | 21 | 28 | 35 | 42 | ||
| Biomass | CK | 0.065 ± 0.007b | 0.161 ± 0.006b | 0.186 ± 0.008c | 0.338 ± 0.012c | 0.479 ± 0.037b | 0.617 ± 0.037c |
| T1 | 0.067 ± 0.004b | 0.174 ± 0.019b | 0.293 ± 0.010b | 0.580 ± 0.023b | 0.973 ± 0.019a | 1.363 ± 0.032a | |
| T2 | 0.080 ± 0.004a | 0.189 ± 0.023b | 0.306 ± 0.014b | 0.574 ± 0.018b | 0.994 ± 0.051a | 1.280 ± 0.025b | |
| T3 | 0.079 ± 0.010a | 0.215 ± 0.011a | 0.440 ± 0.025a | 0.620 ± 0.014a | 0.970 ± 0.017a | 1.282 ± 0.027b | |
| Nitrogen concentration | CK | 43.30 ± 2.31b | 39.70 ± 2.76b | 39.07 ± 1.59b | 30.80 ± 1.57d | 20.50 ± 1.08c | 20.50 ± 0.79c |
| T1 | 57.50 ± 0.26a | 61.27 ± 1.01a | 69.63 ± 1.90a | 67.30 ± 0.17c | 72.70 ± 2.66b | 83.77 ± 2.57b | |
| T2 | 57.63 ± 0.85a | 62.20 ± 1.23a | 74.87 ± 2.25a | 71.97 ± 0.99b | 81.87 ± 1.65a | 88.07 ± 2.67ab | |
| T3 | 60.57 ± 1.27a | 64.00 ± 0.85a | 73.30 ± 4.98a | 76.63 ± 0.50a | 79.47 ± 0.74a | 88.80 ± 2.11a | |
Note: Data of the table represent average value ± standard deviation (n = 3) and those with the different letters in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Nitrogen nutrition index (NNI) in pakchoi at different nitrogen treatments.
| Treatment | Days after Transplant (d) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 14 | 21 | 28 | 35 | 42 | |
| CK | 0.77 | 0.63 | 0.57 | 0.43 | 0.27 | 0.26 |
| T1 | 1.03 | 0.97 | 1.01 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 1.05 |
| T2 | 1.03 | 0.98 | 1.08 | 1.00 | 1.07 | 1.11 |
| T3 | 1.08 | 1.01 | 1.06 | 1.06 | 1.04 | 1.12 |
Note: NNI > 1, excessive nitrogen nutrition; NNI = 1, optimal nitrogen nutrition; NNI < 1, deficient N nutrition.
Figure 4Significance analyses of phenotypic features with a p-value threshold of 0.05. The phenotypic features are indicated using numbers corresponding to their names. The solid horizontal line represents p = 0.05, i.e., −log10 (p) = 1.301. The solid and hollow circles indicate the conditions p < 0.05 and p > 0.05, respectively. (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F) corresponding to 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 days after the first N application, respectively.
Figure 5Quantitative relationship between simulated and measured nitrogen nutrition index (NNI) values, represented in the form of scatter plots of the manually measured NNI and the NNI predicted using three models: (A) random forest (RF), (B) support vector regression (SVR), and (C) neural network (NN). The line (y = x) represents the expected prediction. The quantitative relationship between the image-based features and the NNI was evaluated in terms of the coefficient of determination R2, root-mean-square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) of the models.
Model evaluation result under different plant N nutrition status and growth stages.
| Different Scenarios | Range of Measured NNI | Model | Model Evaluation Results | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range of Simulated NNI | R2 | Relative Error (%) | Accuracy | |||
| Excessive | 1.01~1.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
| SVR | 0.772~1.135 | 0.206 | 3.56 | 0.586 | ||
| NN | 0.822~1.000 | 0.016 | 1.76 | 0.085 | ||
| Low | 0.26~0.93 |
|
|
|
|
|
| SVR | 0.173~1.087 | 0.921 | 10.51 | 0.984 | ||
| NN | 0.237~1.000 | 0.918 | 10.35 | 0.952 | ||
| Seedling period | 0.63~1.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
| SVR | 0.348~1.084 | 0.703 | 8.79 | 0.856 | ||
| NN | 0.416~1.000 | 0.674 | 8.35 | 0.766 | ||
| Harvest period | 0.26~1.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
| SVR | 0.173~1.135 | 0.981 | 5.23 | 0.974 | ||
| NN | 0.237~1.000 | 0.969 | 6.06 | 0.869 | ||
Note: RF, Random Forest; SVR, Support Vector Regression; NN, Neural Network
Figure 6Capabilities of different image-based phenotyping methods in predicting the plant N status based on the evaluation of nitrogen nutrition index (NNI). The overall prediction accuracies of each type of phenotypic trait are included. The error bars represent the standard deviation. The white, light gray, gray, and dark gray bars indicate the prediction accuracies obtained using all traits, color-, texture-, and morphology-related traits, respectively.
Figure 7Relative contributions of individual features in predicting nitrogen nutrition index (NNI). Note that the phenotypic features are shared in the three panels. Phenotypic features are indicated in numbers corresponding to their names. The top five most important features are highlighted and labeled; the black, blue, and green fonts represent the color-, texture-, and morphology-related features, respectively.