| Literature DB >> 32127910 |
Zhengmeng Chen1, Fuzheng Wang1,2, Pei Zhang3, Chendan Ke4, Yan Zhu1, Weixing Cao1, Haidong Jiang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Image processing techniques have been widely used in the analysis of leaf characteristics. Earlier techniques for processing digital RGB color images of plant leaves had several drawbacks, such as inadequate de-noising, and adopting normal-probability statistical estimation models which have few parameters and limited applicability.Entities:
Keywords: Leaf color; RGB model; SPAD; Skewed distribution; Skewed parameters
Year: 2020 PMID: 32127910 PMCID: PMC7043033 DOI: 10.1186/s13007-020-0561-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Methods ISSN: 1746-4811 Impact factor: 4.993
Fig. 1Color gradation cumulative frequency histograms for single-leaves at four different leaf ages. The leaves are picked at random. Color gradation cumulative frequency histograms of the red, green, and blue color channels as well as gray-level images are showed at 40, 50, 60 and 65 days of leaf age. The X-axis is the cumulative frequency, and the Y-axis is the intensity level frequency
Parameters using skewed-distribution analysis and the SPAD values
| Parameter | 40 days | 50 days | 60 days | 65 days |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPAD | 25.02b | 32.45c | 25.56b | 10.95a |
| RMean | 98.64a | 102.38b | 121.78c | 154.62d |
| RMedian | 94.96a | 104.88b | 123.68c | 158.68d |
| RMode | 88.32a | 118.02b | 131.64c | 170.62d |
| RSkewness | 0.46d | − 0.04c | − 0.19b | − 0.59a |
| RKurtosis | 0.14b | 0.26b | − 0.07a | 0.12b |
| GMean | 126.58a | 126.98a | 138.96b | 149.80c |
| GMedian | 123.02a | 130.26b | 141.30c | 153.14d |
| GMode | 114.72a | 137.50b | 146.60c | 163.82d |
| GSkewness | 0.35d | − 0.29c | − 0.36b | − 0.59a |
| GKurtosis | 0.37b | 0.43b | 0.06a | 0.51b |
| BMean | 32.60a | 37.34b | 39.65b | 44.82c |
| BMedian | 21.92a | 34.48b | 36.54b | 41.74c |
| BMode | 12.32a | 24.82b | 27.14b | 34.28c |
| BSkewness | 1.83b | 1.48a | 1.65ab | 2.10c |
| BKurtosis | 3.70a | 7.13b | 8.85b | 13.32c |
| YMean | 107.47a | 109.38a | 122.49b | 139.28c |
| YMedian | 103.14a | 111.88b | 124.16c | 142.30d |
| YMode | 95.08a | 118.38b | 127.96c | 152.66d |
| YSkewness | 0.54d | − 0.09c | − 0.20b | − 0.44a |
| YKurtosis | 0.39b | 0.42b | 0.05a | 0.44b |
The 20 parameters include the mean, median, mode, skewness and kurtosis with the red, green, and blue color channels as well as the gray-level images with MATLAB using 50 pieces of fully expanded tobacco leaves at 40, 50, 60 and 65 days, respectively. The SPAD values also come from the 50 leaves for each leaf age. Each leaf blade was measured at five points: one on the upper part, two at the middle part and two at petiole of both leaf sides. Values without a common letter are significantly different according to the Duncan test (p < 0.05)
Correlation between the mean parameters and their combinations for tobacco leaves and the blade SPAD values
| RMean | GMean | BMean | RMean + GMean + BMean | RMean/RMean + GMean + BMean | GMean/RMean + GMean + BMean | BMean/RMean + GMean + BMean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson correlation | − 0.763** | − 0.711** | − 0.402** | − 0.737** | − 0.723** | 0.675** | 0.150* |
The mean parameters of the red, green, and blue color channels as well as the gray-level images were obtained using 50 pieces of fully expanded tobacco leaves at 40, 50, 60 and 65 days, respectively. The SPAD values also come from 50 leaves at each leaf age. Each leaf blade was measured at the same five points mentioned in Table 2
** Indicates significant correlation according to a two-tailed test (p < 0.01)
* Indicates significant correlation according to a two-tailed test (p < 0.05)
Correlation between the skewed-distribution parameters and the blade SPAD values of the tobacco leaves
| RMean | RMedian | RMode | RSkewness | RKurtosis | GMean | GMedian | GMode | RSkewness | RKurtosis | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson correlation | − 0.763** | − 0.728** | − 0.592** | − 0.458** | − 0.007** | 0.711** | 0.637** | − 0.480** | 0.312** | − 0.109 |
The 20 parameters with the red, green, and blue color channels as well as the gray-level images were obtained with MATLAB using 50 pieces of fully expanded tobacco leaves at 40, 50, 60 and 65 days, respectively
** Indicates significant correlation according to a two-tailed test (p < 0.01)
* Indicates significant correlation according to a two-tailed test (p < 0.05)
Constructed correlation models between the SPAD value and the leaf color parameters
| Model | Fit type |
|---|---|
| F1=59.733 − 0.304 × RMean | Linear regression |
| F2 = 76.134 − 0.441 × RMean − 11.203 × | Linear regression |
| F3 = 19.38 + 7.972 × cos (1.314 × | Fourier fitting |
F4 = 0.3344 + 0.8709 × RMean − 1 77.3 × +2.8 76 × RMean × | Polynomial fitting |
F1: Using the mean parameters RMean, GMean, BMean and their combinations with a normality assumption to establish multivariate linear regression models by stepwise regression, then choosing the best model. F2: Using all 20 parameters to establish multivariate linear regression models by stepwise regression, then choosing the best model. F3: Using the Fourier function to fit and obtain the model. F4: Using the MATLAB Curve Fitting Toolbox to fit the polynomial F4 that incorporates spatial bidirectional patterns
Fig. 2SPAD Fourier-based nonlinear fitting model. The fitting curve (F3)was obtained by the MATLAB Curve Fitting Toolbox
Fig. 3SPAD polynomial fitting surface. The fitting curve (F4)was obtained by the MATLAB Curve Fitting Toolbox
Correlation between the leaf color parameters and the SPAD values for each of the constructed models
| Model | R2 | Adjusted R2 | SSE | RMSE | Prediction sample | Eliminate abnormal | Predictive accuracy (%) | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 0.583 | 0.581 | 7168 | 6.017 | 168 | 8 | 78.17 | 0.1832 |
| F2 | 0.694 | 0.689 | 5260 | 5.181 | 168 | 16 | 79.36 | 0.1976 |
| F3 | 0.648 | 0.643 | 6048 | 5.555 | 168 | 13 | 64.42 | 0.2320 |
| F4 | 0.719 | 0.705 | 4870 | 5.050 | 168 | 11 | 82.15 | 0.1732 |
The R2, adjusted R2, SSE, RMSE, predictive accuracy and standard deviation were compared for the four models (F1 − F4). Predictive accuracy = (1 − | predictive value-measured value |/measured) × 100%