| Literature DB >> 31941027 |
Matheus Cardim Ferreira Lima1,2, Anne Krus3, Constantino Valero3, Antonio Barrientos4, Jaime Del Cerro4, Juan Jesús Roldán-Gómez4,5.
Abstract
A crop monitoring system was developed for the supervision of organic fertilization status on tomato plants at early stages. An automatic and nondestructive approach was used to analyze tomato plants with different levels of water-soluble organic fertilizer (3 + 5 NK) and vermicompost. The evaluation system was composed by a multispectral camera with five lenses: green (550 nm), red (660 nm), red edge (735 nm), near infrared (790 nm), RGB, and a computational image processing system. The water-soluble fertilizer was applied weekly in four different treatments: (T0: 0 mL, T1: 6.25 mL, T2: 12.5 mL and T3: 25 mL) and the vermicomposting was added in Weeks 1 and 5. The trial was conducted in a greenhouse and 192 images were taken with each lens. A plant segmentation algorithm was developed and several vegetation indices were calculated. On top of calculating indices, multiple morphological features were obtained through image processing techniques. The morphological features were revealed to be more feasible to distinguish between the control and the organic fertilized plants than the vegetation indices. The system was developed in order to be assembled in a precision organic fertilization robotic platform.Entities:
Keywords: computer vision; morphological features; multispectral image; precision agriculture; vegetation indices
Year: 2020 PMID: 31941027 PMCID: PMC7014396 DOI: 10.3390/s20020435
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Robotic prototype developed by the SUREVEG team.
Figure 2Chronology of plant treatment and image acquisition during the experiment.
Figure 3Overview of the image acquisition system. (a) Conceptual image acquisition scheme. (b) Bracket support with camera and signal correction device measuring tomato plants in early stages.
Shift factors (x- and y-direction) used for overlaying the different images using parrot sequoia in shorter distance of plant samples. (Red image used as reference).
| Images | Shift Factor |
|---|---|
| Green | [50, 23] |
| Near Infrared | [41, −34] |
| Red Edge | [68, −11] |
Figure 4Types of images produced by the sensor after shifting and clipping the area of interest (700 × 800 resolution). (Bluish colors indicate regions with lower levels of reflectance and reddish colors indicates regions with higher levels of reflectance).
Vegetation Indices (VIs) used to create spectral profiles of the tomato plants from the multispectral data with formulae and traditional applications (obtained from [36]).
| Index | Abbreviation | Formula | Application |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normalized Difference Vegetation Index | NDVI |
| Measuring green vegetation through normalized ration ranging from −1 to 1. |
| Index | GNDVI |
| Modification of NDVI, more sensitive to chlorophyll content. |
| Normalized Difference Vegetation Index | RENDVI |
| Modification of NDVI, using Red-Edge information related to plant health. |
| Green Normalized Difference Vegetation Index | NLI |
| Modification of NDVI used to emphasize linear relations with vegetation parameters. |
| Red-Edge Normalized Difference Vegetation Index | OSAVI |
| Variation of NDVI in order to reduce the soil effect |
| Nonlinear Vegetation Index | GRVI |
| Related with leaf production and stress |
| Optimized Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index | MSR |
| A combination of renormalized NDVI and SR to improve sensitivity to vegetable characteristics |
| Green Ratio Vegetation Index | SR |
| Ratio of NIR scattering to chlorophyll and light absorption used for simple vegetation distinction |
| Modified Simple Ratio | NDRER |
| Modification of NDVI, using Red-Edge instead of NIR. |
| Simple ratio | SPI2 |
| Index used in areas with high variability in canopy structure |
| Normalized Difference Red-Edge/Red | LCI |
| Index to assess chlorophyll content in areas of complete leaf coverage. |
Note: For use in this study, some closest Sequoia reflectance bands were substituted by the traditional narrowband wavelengths as described by [36] and showed in the Table 2.
Figure 5Computer vision process based in NDVI image used to extract the plant from the background. Top images: Near-infrared (left), NDVI (center), and RGB (right); bottom images: binarized images.
Figure 6Example of vegetation indices obtained through the Parrot Sequoia camera and segmentation algorithm. NDVI image and phenological state (BBCH scale) of the T0 treatment (left) and the T3 treatment (right).
Morphological properties calculated for the tomato plants at early stages images with different levels of organic fertilization.
| Morphological Property | Description |
|---|---|
| Area | Actual number of pixels in the region, returned as a scalar. |
| Convex Area | Number of pixels in the image that specifies the convex hull, with all pixels within the hull filled in (set to on), returned as a binary image (logical). The image is the size of the bounding box * of the region. |
| Eccentricity | Eccentricity of the ellipse that has the same second-moments as the region, returned as a scalar. The eccentricity is the ratio of the distance between the foci of the ellipse and its major axis length. The value is between 0 and 1. (0 and 1 are degenerate cases. An ellipse whose eccentricity is 0 is a circle, while an ellipse whose eccentricity is 1 is a line segment.) |
| Diameter Equivalent | Diameter of a circle with the same area as the region, returned as a scalar. Computed as |
| Euler Number | Number of objects in the region minus the number of holes in those objects, returned as a scalar. |
| Extent | Ratio of pixels in the region to pixels in the total bounding box *, returned as a scalar. Computed as the area divided by the area of the bounding box *. |
| Filled Area | Number of on pixels in filled image, returned as a scalar. |
| Orientation | Angle between the |
| Major Axis Length | Length (in pixels) of the major axis of the ellipse that has the same normalized second central moments as the region, returned as a scalar. |
| Minor Axis Length | Length (in pixels) of the minor axis of the ellipse that has the same normalized second central moments as the region, returned as a scalar |
| Perimeter | Distance around the boundary of the region returned as a scalar. This function computes the perimeter by calculating the distance between each adjoining pair of pixels around the border of the region |
| Solidity | Proportion of the pixels in the convex hull that are also in the region, returned as a scalar. Computed as area/convex area |
* Bounding box: Smallest rectangle containing the region.
Figure 7Example of vegetation indices obtained through the Parrot Sequoia camera and segmentation algorithm. Modified Simple Ratio (MSR) image and phenological state (BBCH scale) of the T0 treatment (left) and the T3 treatment (right).
Figure 8Evolution of the morphology and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index of the tomato plants according to the fertilization treatments, the DAT (days after transplant) and the phenological state (BBCH scale).
p-values for the parameters (that presented significative difference) analyzed with multispectral images in tomato plants with different organic fertilization levels. (ANOVA Significance test 99%).
| Time After Transplant (Days) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08-mar | 15-mar | 22-mar | 29-mar | 05-abr | 12-abr | 19-abr | 26-abr | |
| 0 | 7 | 14 | 21 | 28 | 36 | 43 | 50 | |
|
| n.s | n.s | n.s | n.s | n.s | n.s | 0.02 ** | 0.05 ** |
|
| n.s | n.s | n.s | n.s | n.s | n.s | 0.074 ** | 0.03 ** |
|
| n.s | n.s | n.s | n.s | n.s | n.s | 0.013 ** | 0.103 ** |
|
| n.s | n.s | n.s | 0.002 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** |
|
| n.s | n.s | n.s | <0.0001 | <0.0001 ** | 0.001 ** | 0.0008 ** | <0.0001 ** |
|
| n.s | n.s | n.s | 0.0007 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** |
|
| n.s | n.s | n.s | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** |
|
| n.s | n.s | n.s | 0.02 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** |
|
| n.s | n.s | n.s | 0.0016 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | 0.0002 ** |
|
| n.s | n.s | n.s | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** |
**: Significative values with 99% of confidence.
Figure 9Boxplots and Tukey Test with 99% of probability using all data (50 days) representing morphological parameters of tomato plants with different levels of organic fertilization. T0, T1, T2, and T3 were the four groups of plants treated with different amounts of fertilizer and vermicompost (see Section 2).
Figure 10Boxplots and Tukey Test with 99% of probability using all data (50 days) representing vegetation indices of tomato plants with different levels of organic fertilization. T0, T1, T2, and T3 were the four groups of plants treated with different amounts of fertilizer and vermicompost (see Section 2).
Linear and polynomial regressions correlating morphological parameters were acquired using multispectral images to weeks after transplant in different organic fertilization levels in tomato plants at early stages.
| Parameter | Tr. | Regression |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Area | T0 |
| 0.937 |
| T3 |
| 0.983 | |
| Filled Area | T0 |
| 0.953 |
| T3 |
| 0.977 | |
| Perimeter | T0 |
| 0.559 |
| T3 |
| 0.941 | |
| Eq. Diameter | T0 |
| 0.938 |
| T3 |
| 0.971 | |
| Convex Area | T0 |
| 0.957 |
| T3 |
| 0.992 | |
| Major Axes | T0 |
| 0.933 |
| T3 |
| 0.988 | |
| Minor Axes | T0 |
| 0.976 |
| T3 |
| 0.964 |
Figure 11Functional boxplots showing morphological responses extracted from multispectral images correlating with number of weeks after transplant and fertilization treatments with a confidence interval of 95%. T0, T1, T2, and T3 were the four groups of plants treated with different amounts of fertilizer and vermicompost (see Section 2).