| Literature DB >> 35408374 |
Shuheng Zhang1, Hanguo Zeng1, Wei Ji1, Kun Yi1, Shuangfeng Yang1, Peisheng Mao1, Zhanjun Wang2, Hongqian Yu2, Manli Li1.
Abstract
Seed vigor is an important index to evaluate seed quality in plant species. How to evaluate seed vigor quickly and accurately has always been a serious problem in the seed research field. As a new physical testing method, multispectral technology has many advantages such as high sensitivity and accuracy, nondestructive and rapid application having advantageous prospects in seed quality evaluation. In this study, the morphological and spectral information of 19 wavelengths (365, 405, 430, 450, 470, 490, 515, 540, 570, 590, 630, 645, 660, 690, 780, 850, 880, 940, 970 nm) of alfalfa seeds with different level of maturity and different harvest periods (years), representing different vigor levels and age of seed, were collected by using multispectral imaging. Five multivariate analysis methods including principal component analysis (PCA), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF) and normalized canonical discriminant analysis (nCDA) were used to distinguish and predict their vigor. The results showed that LDA model had the best effect, with an average accuracy of 92.9% for seed samples of different maturity and 97.8% for seed samples of different harvest years, and the average sensitivity, specificity and precision of LDA model could reach more than 90%. The average accuracy of nCDA in identifying dead seeds with no vigor reached 93.3%. In identifying the seeds with high vigor and predicting the germination percentage of alfalfa seeds, it could reach 95.7%. In summary, the use of Multispectral Imaging and multivariate analysis in this experiment can accurately evaluate and predict the seed vigor, seed viability and seed germination percentages of alfalfa, providing important technical methods and ideas for rapid non-destructive testing of seed quality.Entities:
Keywords: multispectral imaging; multivariate analysis; seed germination; seed viability; seed vigor
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35408374 PMCID: PMC9003024 DOI: 10.3390/s22072760
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Germination potential and germination percentage of seeds at (A) different maturity levels and (B) harvest years. Note: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Artificial accelerated aging of seed vigor test at (A) different maturity levels and (B) harvest years. Note: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Chlorophyll A and chlorophyll B fluorescence intensity of seeds at different maturity levels and harvest years. (A) Chlorophyll A fluorescence intensity of seeds at different maturity levels. (B) Chlorophyll A fluorescence intensity of seeds at different harvest years. (C) Chlorophyll B fluorescence intensity of seeds at different maturity levels. (D) Chlorophyll B fluorescence intensity of seeds at different harvest years. Note: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Comparative analysis of morphological characteristics of alfalfa seeds with different maturity levels.
| Feature | Green Ripe Stage | Yellow Ripening Stage | Full Ripening Stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Area (mm2) | 2.09 ± 0.51 b | 2.75 ± 0.34 a | 2.77 ± 0.39 a |
| Length (mm) | 2.05 ± 0.29 b | 2.37 ± 0.22 a | 2.37 ± 0.21 a |
| Width (mm) | 1.40 ± 0.17 b | 1.58 ± 0.10 a | 1.58 ± 0.13 a |
| RatioWidthLength | 0.69 ± 0.08 a | 0.67 ± 0.08 b | 0.67 ± 0.07 b |
| Compactness Circle | 0.66 ± 0.08 | 0.65 ± 0.08 | 0.65 ± 0.07 |
| Compactness Ellipse | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 0.99 ± 0.01 | 0.99 ± 0.01 |
| BetaShape_a | 1.64 ± 0.17 a | 1.57 ± 0.15 b | 1.55 ± 0.13 c |
| BetaShape_b | 1.51 ± 0.17 a | 1.49 ± 0.13 b | 1.48 ± 0.13 c |
| Vertical Skewness | −0.07 ± 0.05 c | −0.05 ± 0.04 b | −0.04 ± 0.03 a |
| CIELab L* | 39.27 ± 5.45 c | 46.05 ± 3.91 b | 47.47 ± 3.16 a |
| CIELab A* | 6.76 ± 3.77 c | 9.62 ± 2.12 a | 9.24 ± 1.43 b |
| CIELab B* | 29.45 ± 4.80 c | 33.35 ± 2.67 a | 33.10 ± 3.30 b |
| Saturation | 30.98 ± 4.66 b | 34.70 ± 2.41 a | 34.25 ± 3.19 a |
| Hue | 1.21 ± 0.62 b | 1.28 ± 0.15 a | 1.30 ± 0.05 a |
Note: Different lowercase letters in the same line indicate significant differences, while the same letters indicate no significant differences (p < 0.05).
Comparative analysis of morphological characteristics of alfalfa seeds in different harvest years.
| Feature | 2019 | 2008 | 2004 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Area (mm2) | 2.53 ± 0.41 b | 2.88 ± 0.47 a | 2.94 ± 0.46 a |
| Length (mm) | 2.29 ± 0.23 b | 2.48 ± 0.26 a | 2.47 ± 0.24 a |
| Width (mm) | 1.48 ± 0.13 c | 1.54 ± 0.14 b | 1.59 ± 0.14 a |
| RatioWidthLength | 0.65 ± 0.07 a | 0.63 ± 0.07 b | 0.65 ± 0.07 a |
| Compactness Circle | 0.62 ± 0.07 a | 0.60 ± 0.07 b | 0.62 ± 0.07 a |
| Compactness Ellipse | 0.99 ± 0.01 | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 0.99 ± 0.01 |
| BetaShape_a | 1.50 ± 0.14 a | 1.46 ± 0.15 b | 1.50 ± 0.14 a |
| BetaShape_b | 1.43 ± 0.12 a | 1.39 ± 0.13 b | 1.42 ± 0.13 a |
| Vertical Skewness | −0.04 ± 0.03 | −0.04 ± 0.03 | −0.04 ± 0.03 |
| CIELab L* | 48.33 ± 4.05 a | 43.72 ± 4.39 b | 35.75 ± 4.44 c |
| CIELab A* | 10.26 ± 2.56 c | 14.25 ± 2.74 b | 16.48 ± 2.01 a |
| CIELab B* | 29.71 ± 2.83 a | 27.54 ± 2.98 b | 19.70 ± 4.53 c |
| Saturation | 31.37 ± 2.42 a | 31.05 ± 2.42 a | 25.91 ± 4.29 b |
| Hue | 1.24 ± 0.09 a | 1.09 ± 0.10 b | 0.87 ± 0.09 c |
Note: Different lowercase letters in the same line indicate significant differences, while the same letters indicate no significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Mean spectral reflectance of alfalfa seeds at (A) different maturity levels and (B) harvest years.
Figure 5Principal component analysis based on multispectral data of alfalfa seeds of (A) different maturity levels and (B) harvest years.
Figure 6LDA model diagram based on morphological and spectral data of alfalfa seeds of (A) different maturity levels and (B) harvest years.
Prediction of alfalfa seeds with different maturity levels by LDA, SVM and RF models.
| Model | Index | G vs. Y | Y vs. F | G vs. F |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LDA | Sensitivity (%) | 94.2 | 87.4 | 97.5 |
| Specificity (%) | 98.3 | 84.3 | 95.9 | |
| Precision (%) | 98.3 | 84.6 | 95.9 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 96.3 | 85.8 | 96.7 | |
| SVM | Sensitivity (%) | 95.0 | 89.1 | 95.8 |
| Specificity (%) | 96.6 | 81.0 | 92.6 | |
| Precision (%) | 96.6 | 82.2 | 92.7 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 95.8 | 85.0 | 94.2 | |
| RF | Sensitivity (%) | 91.7 | 82.4 | 99.2 |
| Specificity (%) | 95.0 | 77.7 | 93.4 | |
| Precision (%) | 94.9 | 78.4 | 93.7 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 93.3 | 80.0 | 96.3 |
Note: G stands for green ripe seed, Y stands for yellow ripening seed and F stands for full ripe seed.
Prediction of alfalfa seeds harvested in different years by LDA, SVM and RF models.
| Model | Index | 2004 vs. 2008 | 2008 vs. 2019 | 2004 vs. 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LDA | Sensitivity (%) | 98.3 | 97.5 | 100.0 |
| Specificity (%) | 95.9 | 95.9 | 99.2 | |
| Precision (%) | 95.9 | 95.9 | 99.2 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 97.1 | 96.7 | 99.6 | |
| SVM | Sensitivity (%) | 94.1 | 97.5 | 99.2 |
| Specificity (%) | 96.7 | 93.4 | 99.2 | |
| Precision (%) | 96.6 | 93.5 | 99.2 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 95.4 | 95.4 | 99.2 | |
| RF | Sensitivity (%) | 95.0 | 87.4 | 97.5 |
| Specificity (%) | 95.9 | 89.3 | 98.3 | |
| Precision (%) | 95.8 | 88.9 | 98.3 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 95.4 | 88.3 | 97.9 |
Figure 7nCDA image and actual germination of seeds. (A). nCDA images of seeds harvested at green ripe stage and actual germination at the last count of germination test. (B). nCDA images of harvested seeds at full ripening stage and actual germination at the last count of germination test.
Seed germination prediction of different maturity and harvest years based on nCDA.
| Sample | Classification | Actually Number of CS | Correctly Predict Number of CS | Actually Number of RS | Correctly Predict Number of RS | Accuracy of Prediction(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maturity | D | 173 | 160 | 1027 | 987 | 95.6 |
| F | 2 | 2 | 1198 | 1089 | 90.9 | |
| A | 17 | 14 | 1183 | 1033 | 87.3 | |
| H | 649 | 451 | 551 | 375 | 68.8 | |
| N | 359 | 232 | 841 | 698 | 77.5 | |
| N + H | 1008 | 982 | 192 | 179 | 96.8 | |
| Harvest year | D | 406 | 378 | 794 | 713 | 90.9 |
| F | 10 | 9 | 1190 | 1019 | 85.7 | |
| A | 26 | 15 | 1174 | 904 | 76.6 | |
| H | 80 | 57 | 1120 | 1065 | 93.5 | |
| N | 678 | 647 | 522 | 433 | 90.0 | |
| N + H | 758 | 719 | 442 | 416 | 94.6 |
Note: CS indicates corresponding classified samples, and RS for remaining classified samples.