| Literature DB >> 33889850 |
Meiyan Shu1, Mengyuan Shen1, Jinyu Zuo1, Pengfei Yin2, Min Wang2, Ziwen Xie1, Jihua Tang3, Ruili Wang4, Baoguo Li1, Xiaohong Yang2, Yuntao Ma1.
Abstract
Crop traits such as aboveground biomass (AGB), total leaf area (TLA), leaf chlorophyll content (LCC), and thousand kernel weight (TWK) are important indices in maize breeding. How to extract multiple crop traits at the same time is helpful to improve the efficiency of breeding. Compared with digital and multispectral images, the advantages of high spatial and spectral resolution of hyperspectral images derived from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) are expected to accurately estimate the similar traits among breeding materials. This study is aimed at exploring the feasibility of estimating AGB, TLA, SPAD value, and TWK using UAV hyperspectral images and at determining the optimal models for facilitating the process of selecting advanced varieties. The successive projection algorithm (SPA) and competitive adaptive reweighted sampling (CARS) were used to screen sensitive bands for the maize traits. Partial least squares (PLS) and random forest (RF) algorithms were used to estimate the maize traits. The results can be summarized as follows: The sensitive bands for various traits were mainly concentrated in the near-red and red-edge regions. The sensitive bands screened by CARS were more abundant than those screened by SPA. For AGB, TLA, and SPAD value, the optimal combination was the CARS-PLS method. Regarding the TWK, the optimal combination was the CARS-RF method. Compared with the model built by RF, the model built by PLS was more stable. This study provides guiding significance and practical value for main trait estimation of maize inbred lines by UAV hyperspectral images at the plot level.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33889850 PMCID: PMC8054988 DOI: 10.34133/2021/9890745
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Phenomics ISSN: 2643-6515
Figure 1Geographical location of the experimental site.
Figure 2UAV-based hyperspectral imaging system.
Figure 3Main flow chart of the research.
Basic statistics of the field measurements.
| Date | Period | Object | Min | Max | Mean | CV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019.9.22 | Grain filling stage | AGB (g/plant) | 34.08 | 255 | 140.39 | 30.89 |
| TLA (m2) | 0.11 | 0.43 | 0.3 | 23.16 | ||
| SPAD | 21.9 | 61.77 | 45.15 | 18.81 | ||
|
| ||||||
| 2019.10.24 | Harvest time | TKW (g) | 110 | 494.68 | 289.53 | 34.5 |
CV: coefficient variation.
Figure 4Correlation diagram between the traits and the hyperspectrum (a) and the correlation diagram among traits (b).
Results of aboveground biomass (AGB) estimation based on different band combinations and PLS or RF regression.
| Bands | Wavelength (nm) | Method | Training set | Test set | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| RMSE | MAE |
| RMSE | MAE | |||
| All bands | 450-950 | PLS | 0.41∗∗ | 35.67 | 31.06 | 0.38∗ | 32.86 | 25.74 |
| RF | 0.43∗∗ | 40.34 | 34.80 | 0.36∗ | 29.74 | 23.13 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| SPA | 718, 770 | PLS | 0.57∗∗ | 33.53 | 29.72 | 0.26n.s. | 35.33 | 28.60 |
| RF | 0.58∗∗ | 38.18 | 32.39 | 0.27n.s. | 33.56 | 24.94 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| CARS | 486, 510-514, 606, 710-718, 758-770, 894-902 | PLS | 0.55∗∗ | 31.33 | 27.53 | 0.48∗∗ | 28.53 | 21.23 |
| RF | 0.42∗∗ | 39.33 | 33.17 | 0.27n.s. | 32.37 | 24.24 | ||
n.s., ∗, and ∗∗ indicate “not significant,” p < 0.05, and p < 0.01, respectively.
Figure 5Aboveground biomass (AGB) prediction using different band combinations and the PLS or RF model.
Results of total leaf area (TLA) estimation based on different band combinations and PLS or RF regression.
| Bands | Wavelength (nm) | Method | Training set | Test set | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| RMSE | MAE |
| RMSE | MAE | |||
| All bands | 450-950 | PLS | 0.54∗∗ | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.18n.s. | 0.07 | 0.06 |
| RF | 0.40∗∗ | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.26n.s. | 0.09 | 0.07 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| SPA | 770 | PLS | 0.56∗∗ | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.18n.s. | 0.08 | 0.06 |
| RF | 0.48∗∗ | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.06n.s. | 0.1 | 0.08 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| CARS | 486, 502, 606, 634, 682, 722, 770-774, 782, 878, 910 | PLS | 0.73∗∗ | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.62∗∗ | 0.05 | 0.04 |
| RF | 0.57∗∗ | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.05n.s. | 0.09 | 0.07 | ||
n.s. and ∗ indicate “not significant” and p < 0.01, respectively.
Figure 6Total leaf area (TLA) prediction using different band combinations and the PLS or RF model.
Results of the SPAD estimation based on different band combinations and PLS or RF regression.
| Bands | Wavelength (nm) | Method | Training set | Test set | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| RMSE | MAE |
| RMSE | MAE | |||
| All bands | 450-950 | PLS | 0.65∗∗ | 5.66 | 4.94 | 0.68∗∗ | 7.99 | 6.18 |
| RF | 0.50∗∗ | 4.99 | 4.39 | 0.56∗∗ | 8.35 | 6.82 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| SPA | 722, 770 | PLS | 0.72∗∗ | 5.03 | 4.29 | 0.70∗∗ | 7.51 | 6.13 |
| RF | 0.61∗∗ | 5.45 | 4.81 | 0.59∗∗ | 8.85 | 6.55 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| CARS | 462, 470-486, 614, 694, 714-718, 726 | PLS | 0.66∗∗ | 4.95 | 4.42 | 0.86∗∗ | 6.24 | 5.11 |
| RF | 0.52∗∗ | 4.97 | 4.21 | 0.74∗∗ | 7.44 | 5.91 | ||
∗∗ indicates p < 0.01.
Figure 7SPAD value prediction using different band combinations and the PLS or RF model.
Results of TWK estimation based on different band combinations and PLS or RF regression.
| Bands | Wavelength (nm) | Method |
| RMSE | MAE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All bands | 450-950 | PLS | 0.25∗ | 84.57 | 69.88 |
| RF | 0.84∗∗ | 51.97 | 40.86 | ||
|
| |||||
| SPA | 454, 550, 578, 730, 762, 918, 942, 950 | PLS | 0.24∗ | 85.19 | 69.92 |
| RF | 0.75∗∗ | 59.64 | 46.73 | ||
|
| |||||
| CARS | 578-718, 874-926 | PLS | 0.27∗ | 83.26 | 67.16 |
| RF | 0.85∗∗ | 48.22 | 38.53 | ||
∗ and ∗∗ indicate p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively.
Figure 8TWK prediction using different band combinations and the PLS or RF model.
Figure 9Prediction results of maize TWK based on the optimal combination of the CARS-RF method. Boxplot (a) and percentage chart of the yield levels (b) of different genotypes of materials.