| Literature DB >> 32994539 |
Adrian Gracia-Romero1,2, Shawn C Kefauver1,2, Omar Vergara-Díaz1,2, Esnath Hamadziripi3, Mainassara A Zaman-Allah3, Christian Thierfelder3, Boddupalli M Prassana3, Jill E Cairns3, José L Araus4,5.
Abstract
EnhancingEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32994539 PMCID: PMC7524805 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-73110-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Average maize grain yield across the growing conditions. CA corresponds to plots grown under conservation agriculture management and CT to conventional tillage plots. T + R corresponds to the levels of the combination effect of tillage and residue application, TD to the Top-dressing levels and T + R * TD to the interaction of both factors. The error bars show the standard error of the five replicates. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences between the residue and top-dressing treatments according to Fisher’s LSD test. Significance levels of the ANOVAs: p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; ns no significant.
Figure 2Relationship between the leaf N content (A), the N (B) and the C isotope (C) composition with grain yield. Correlations were studied across the 90 plots from all the growing conditions. CA corresponds to plots grown under conservation agriculture management and CT to conventional tillage plots. T + R corresponds to the levels of the combination effect of tillage and residue application, TD to the Top-dressing levels and T + R * TD to the interaction of both factors. Significance levels of the correlations and ANOVAs: ns, p > 0.05; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Effect of the combination of the tillage and residue application (T + R), the top-dressing (TD) and the combination of both factors (T + R * TD) on the leaf pigment readings.
| T + R | TD | T R * TD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPAD | ns | 1.017e−13*** | ns |
| Chl | ns | 1.426e−11*** | ns |
| Flav | ns | 4.384e−06*** | ns |
| Anth | ns | 1.241e−11*** | ns |
| NBI | ns | 2.612e−09*** | ns |
Significance levels of the ANOVAs: no significant (ns), p > 0.05; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Effect of the combined effect of the tillage conditions with the residue applications levels (T + RL) and the top-dressing (TD) on the RGB indices derived from the leaf scans, and the plot images taken from the ground and the aerial level.
| RGB scans | RGB ground | RGB aerial | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T + RL | TD | T + RL * TD | T + RL | TD | T + RL * TD | T + RL | TD | T + RL * TD | |
| Hue | ns | 2.249e−07*** | ns | 0.02878* | 5.304e−15*** | ns | ns | 1.878e−15*** | ns |
| Intensity | ns | 6.742e−11*** | ns | ns | ns | ns | 6.958e−05*** | 2.685e−16*** | ns |
| Saturation | ns | 3.308e−11*** | ns | 0.01413* | 4.244e−12*** | ns | 0.033* | 2e−16*** | ns |
| GA | 0.033* | 0.0002957*** | ns | ns | 2e−16*** | ns | ns | 2e−16*** | ns |
| GGA | ns | 8.792e−08*** | ns | ns | 2e−16*** | ns | ns | 2.2e−16*** | 0.008** |
| CSI | ns | 9.696e−08*** | ns | 0.044* | 2.85e−11*** | ns | ns | 2e−16*** | 0.019* |
| Lightness | ns | 9.798e−12*** | ns | ns | ns | ns | 1.337e−06*** | 2.2e−16*** | ns |
| a* | ns | 3.99e−11*** | ns | 0.039* | 1.652e−15*** | ns | ns | 6.981e−09*** | ns |
| b* | ns | 3.504e−12*** | ns | 0.005** | 4.472e−09*** | ns | 9.912e−05*** | 2.2e−16*** | ns |
| u* | ns | 2.268e−09*** | ns | 0.041* | 5.324e−15*** | ns | ns | 3.996e−14*** | ns |
| v* | ns | 3.915e−12*** | ns | 0.004** | 2.634e−05*** | ns | 5.568e−06*** | 2.2e−16*** | ns |
| NGRDI | ns | ns | ns | ns | 2e−16*** | ns | ns | 1.658e−14*** | 0.010* |
| TGI | ns | ns | ns | 0.001** | 3.825e−08*** | 0.006** | 0.0001*** | 1.56e−06*** | ns |
These indices are defined in the “Methods” section. Significance levels of the correlations and ANOVAs: no significant (ns), p > 0.05; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Figure 3Heat map of Pearson correlation coefficients (R values) between the leaf-clip sensor readings with the grain yield (GY) and the N leaf content inside each growing condition, across treatments (Across T) and across the combination of reside levels and treatments (Across R + T). CA corresponds to plots grown under conservation agriculture management and CT to conventional tillage plots. Correlations colors are scaled according to the key above.
Figure 4Heat map of Pearson correlation coefficients (R values) between the RGB indices derived from leaf scans, and from the ground and aerial canopy images against the GY and the leaf N content inside each growing condition, across treatments (Across T) and across the combination of reside levels and treatments (Across R + T). CA corresponds to plots grown under conservation agriculture management and CT to conventional tillage plots. Correlations colors are scaled according to the key above.
Figure 5Diagnostic panel of each variable by itself and their relationship to each other categorized according the top-dressing treatments: 0N in red, 30N in green and 90N in blue. Bottom-left charts represent the scatter plot correlations and the upper-right represent the correlation coefficients. The Cor value corresponds the correlation across all treatments, the value 1 to the correlation inside the 0N plots, the value 2 to the correlation inside the 30N plots and the value 3 to the correlation inside the 90N plots. The diagonal shows a smoothed-out histogram of the values of the measures.
Figure 6RGB leaf scans and canopy images taken from the ground and aerial level.
Figure 7(A) Map of Zimbabwe with the location of Harare and the Southern Africa Regional Station of CIMMYT. (B) Landsat-8 satellite image of the study area acquired from DigitalGlobe using Google Earth Pro on the 28th of March 2017. (C) Aerial image Red–Green–Blue (RGB) orthomosaic at 30 m of the trial.
Top-dressing fertilizer treatments.
| Subtreatments | Top-dressing fertilizer |
|---|---|
| 0N | 28 kg ha−1 P2O5 and 14 kg ha−1 K20 |
| 30N | 200 kg ha−1 Compound D (7:14:7) and 46 kg ha−1 AN |
| 90N | 200 kg ha−1 Compound D (7:14:7) and 220 kg ha−1 AN |
Figure 8Ground level RGB canopy images system using the pheno-pole.