A potential relationship between soil disinfestation efficacy and leaf green reflectance.

Soil disinfestation with steam was evaluated as an alternative to fumigation. Following soil disinfestation, plant health has traditionally been measured using plant size and yield. Plant health can be measured in a timely manner more efficiently, more easily and non-destructively using image analysis. We hypothesized that plant health could be quantified and treatments can be differentiated using an RGB (Red, Green, Blue) image analysis program, particularly by observing the greenness of plant leaves. However, plant size or the proportion of green area could be unreliable due to plant loss and camera's position and angle. To this end, we decided to evaluate plant health by analyzing the RGB codes associated with the green color only, which detects the chlorophyll reflectance and nutrient status, noting that the degree of greenness within the green-leaf-area was not affected by the plant size. We identified five RGB codes that are commonly observed in the plant leaves and ordered them from dark green to light green. Among the five RGB codes, the relative percentage covered by the darkest green to the lightest green was significantly different between the steam and chloropicrin treatments and the control, and it was not significantly different between the steam and chloropicrin treatments. Furthermore, the result was correlated with the total yield, and the trend observed in the first year was replicated in the second year of this experiment. In this study, we demonstrate that the RGB image analysis can be used as an early marker of the treatment effect on the plant health and productivity.

Introduction

Methyl bromide (MB) is a soil fumigant that has been widely used for soil disinfestation prior to planting strawberry. However, the use of MB has mostly been eliminated due to restrictions mandated by the Montreal Protocol [1]. MB alternative fumigants are chloropicrin, metam sodium and 1,3-D. These fumigants are highly regulated and difficult to use in many fields due to the proximity of schools, hospitals and other sensitive sites [2]. Therefore, there is need for non-fumigant alternatives. Steam is among the non-fumigant alternatives that have been evaluated [2-4]. Samtani et al. [5] reported that the steam treatment is as effective as the MB treatment for reducing soil pests such as phytopathogenic fungi, bacteria, nematodes, and weeds. Other studies also support that the steam controls major pathogens, weeds, and nematodes in strawberry fields [4, 6, 7].

The efficacy of steam on soil pests has been typically evaluated by the cumulative density and biomass of weeds, weed germination, viability of propagules and microsclerotia of soil pathogens such as Pythium sp., Verticillium sp., and Fusarium spp., percentage of diseased plants, as well as crop vigor and size [3, 4]. Traditionally, the crop vigor and plant health has been measured by crop diameter and leaf area. Recent agricultural studies have utilized image analyses for data collection [8-10]. Al-Tamimi et al. [11] estimated the area and biomass of rice leaves by optical imaging with RGB cameras. To obtain accurate image data for the crop size, however, the cameras should be in a fixed position, and it is challenging to do this in agricultural fields. Cockerton et al. [8] calculated the ratio of diseased area to healthy area of strawberry leaves by estimating green pixels and total pixels using images taken by an unmanned aerial vehicle. As an alternative to measuring the crop size; the leaf color can be used to measure crop health using chlorophyll reflectance and nutrient status. A crop can be unhealthy due to both biotic and abiotic stresses, and the leaf color can be changed as a result of metabolic and physiological changes [12]. If the steam application improves the health conditions of strawberry by controlling soilborne pests, it would be revealed by the leaf color.

Our hypothesis is that steam controls soil pests as well as chloropicrin fumigant and that the health of the crop can be detected by image analysis. The objective of this study is to determine if the image analysis of strawberry plant color spectrum, especially green, can be used to measure plant health during the crop establishment phase, and to estimate the relationship between plant color spectrum and fruit yield. In this study, the steam treatment is compared to the non-treated control and chloropicrin during two harvest seasons.

Materials and methods

Treatment description and data collection

Steam was applied on September 6, 2019 and September 11 and 12, 2020, respectively. This experiment was conducted at the Spence research farm 10 km south of Salinas, California, in a sandy loam soil with <1% organic matter. Each of the three treatments, nontreated control, steam, and chloropicrin, was replicated four times and arranged in a randomized complete block design.

In the 2019–2020 trial, the prototype field-scale steam applicator (Southern Turf Nurseries, STN, Elberta, AL) was equipped with a 223.7 kW h-1 diesel-fueled Cleaver Brooks steam generator mounted on a trailer towed by a tractor (Fig 1). Steam was injected using a 3 m wide reverse tiller that was set to till 30 to 40 cm deep. Chloropicrin was applied at 24 mL m-2 by subsurface drip irrigation. Strawberry plants (Fragaria × ananassa cv. ‘Cabrillo’) were transplanted on November 15, 2019. The strawberry fruit was harvested twice weekly for a total of 36 times from April to September 2020.

Fig 1

The steam generator and applicator used in 2019–2020 (a) and 2020–2021 (b) trials.

In the 2020–2021 trial, the self-propelled diesel fueled steam generator and applicator (JSE, Daegu, South Korea) was equipped with 20 straight shanks that could treat 2 m per pass (Fig 1). Steam was injected to a depth of 30 cm through a pipe on the back of the shanks. Chloropicrin 56.7% plus 1,3-Dichloropropene 37.1% mixture (PicClor 60 EC) was applied on October 24, 2020 at 26.19 mL m-2. Strawberry plants (Fragaria × ananassa cv. ‘Cabrillo’) were transplanted on November 17, 2020. The strawberry fruit was harvested twice weekly for a total of 41 times from March to August 2021.

The soil temperature was measured by HOBO loggers (U12 Outdoor, Onset Computer Corp., Pocasset, MA) and the times above 65°C during the first hour after steam application at the depths of 10, 20, and 25 cm were 49.5, 57.0, and 23.5 minutes in the 2019–2020 trial and were 60.0, 60.0, and 0.0 minutes in the 2020–2021 trial, respectively.

Eight months after the treatments were applied, 6 m of each bed was photographed by a digital camera (EOS 70D DSLR, Cannon, Inc., Tokyo, Japan). The pictures of the three treatments are present in Fig 2. Each picture was converted from a JPEG file to a GIF image file for image analysis. Each GIF file was uploaded to the image analysis program available at http://mkwak.org/imgarea. The image analysis program outputs RGB codes and the number of pixels.

Fig 2

Pictures for the image analysis.

A: May 2020; B: June 2020; C: July 2020; D: May 2021; E: June 2021; F: July 2021.

Statistical methods

The image analysis program produced RGB codes with pixels occupied by each RGB code. There are various formulas to quantify colors using RGB codes, and there is no single formula to define “green” [13]. Instead of applying complicated formulas and restrictions, we observed all images and the associated RGB codes. There is a clear pattern that green colors satisfy both G > R and G > B. In addition, green colors tend to be darker when (R + B) / G is close to zero. For example, (R, G, B) = (0, 43, 0) was relatively dark green, and (R, G, B) = (102, 128, 102) was relatively light green. In addition, we identified the most five common RGB codes associated green colors: (0, 43, 0), (51, 85, 51), (51, 85, 0), (102, 128, 51), and (102, 128, 102) ranging from dark green to light green. All other colors other than these green colors were removed to analyze green colors. We let Ai denote the pixels occupied by the i-th green RGB code (Ri, Gi, Bi) for i = 1, 2, …, m, where m is the number of unique green colors identified by the image analysis program. To account for the proportion occupied by each color, we let Wi = Ai / (A1 + … + Am) be the proportion, and the averages of R, G, B, R/G, and B/G were calculated by the weighted average ∑ Wi Ri, ∑ Wi Gi, ∑ Wi Bi, ∑ Wi Ri /Gi and, ∑ Wi Bi /Gi, respectively. Note that the weight Wi quantifies the proportion occupied by each green color among the five common green colors (not all colors in the image). To compare the three treatments, the sampling distributions of these five statistics were approximated by the bootstrapping method [9, 14, 15]. To respect the varying pixels, the i-th green RGB code was sampled with a probability of Wi in a bootstrap sample. Using 2,000 bootstrap samples, 95% bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the difference of means; comparing chloropicrin to the nontreated control, steam to nontreated control, and steam to chloropicrin.

After visualizing the bootstrap distributions of the color variables, we formally compared the ratio of the area occupied by the dark green (0, 43, 0) to the area occupied by the light green (102, 128, 102). If the ratio value is above one, it indicates darker green strawberry leaves (healthier condition). The expected ratio was compared among the three treatments with respect to time (May, June, and July) at the significance level of α = 0.05. To account for the repeated observations per experimental unit, the mixed-effects model was used for the hypothesis testing. To respect the normality assumption, the log-transformation was applied to the ratio. Finally, we compared the expected cumulative total fruit yield (grams per plant) among the three treatments at α = 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed in R version 4.0.3 with the lmer and lmerTest packages [16-18].

Results

Bootstrap sampling distributions of the five statistics (means of R, G, B, R/G, and B/G) are presented in Fig 3. Overall, the distributions of green colors, quantified by the RGB codes, appear different when the treatments of steam and chloropicrin were compared to the control, and the steam and chloropicrin treatments appear similar in both trials (2019–2020 and 2020–2021) as shown in Table 1. Note that green colors tend to be darker when R/G and B/G are close to zero, and Fig 3 demonstrated that the averages of R/G and B/G are generally lower in the steam treatment and chloropicrin treatment when compared to the control. Though the averages are not exactly the same, the order (the lowest in the chloropicrin treatment and the highest in the control) is consistent between the two seasons.

Fig 3

Bootstrap sampling distributions for the means of R, G, B, R/G, and B/G values.

C, Non-treated control; S, Steam; P, Chloropicrin. The top panels were observed in the 2019–2020 trial, and the bottom panels were observed in the 2020–2021 trial.

Table 1

Estimated averages of R, G, B, R/G, and B/G values (95% bootstrap CIs).

	Year	Control (C)	Chloropicrin (P)	Steam (S)	Difference (P − C)	Difference (S − C)	Difference (S − P)
R	2020	135 (126, 143)	106 (94, 117)	111 (99, 122)	-29 (-44, -15)	-24 (-38, -10)	5 (-12, 22)
	2021	133 (122, 142)	98 (86, 108)	115 (104, 126)	-35 (-50, -20)	-17 (-32, -2)	18 (2, 33)
G	2020	155 (148, 162)	131 (121, 141)	136 (126, 145)	-24 (-36, -12)	-20 (-32, -8)	4 (-10, 18)
	2021	153 (144, 162)	124 (115, 133)	139 (129, 148)	-29 (-42, -17)	-14 (-27, -1)	15 (1, 27)
B	2020	133 (124, 142)	96 (84, 108)	104 (92, 116)	-37 (-52, -22)	-29 (-44, -14)	8 (-9, 26)
	2021	132 (121, 141)	91 (80, 102)	112 (100, 123)	-40 (-56, -25)	-19 (-34, -3)	21 (5, 36)
R/G	2020	0.80 (0.76, 0.84)	0.66 (0.60, 0.72)	0.69 (0.63, 0.74)	-0.14 (-0.21, -0.07)	-0.12 (-0.19, -0.04)	0.02 (-0.06, 0.11)
	2021	0.80 (0.76, 0.83)	0.66 (0.61, 0.71)	0.72 (0.67, 0.77)	-0.13 (-0.20, -0.07)	-0.07 (-0.13, -0.01)	0.06 (-0.01, 0.13)
B/G	2020	0.79 (0.74, 0.83)	0.59 (0.53, 0.65)	0.63 (0.57, 0.70)	-0.20 (-0.27, -0.12)	-0.15 (-0.23, -0.08)	0.04 (-0.04, 0.13)
	2021	0.79 (0.75, 0.82)	0.61 (0.56, 0.66)	0.70 (0.65, 0.75)	-0.18 (-0.24, -0.11)	-0.09 (-0.15, -0.02)	0.09 (0.01, 0.16)

Various colors were sorted by the image analysis program (Fig 4), and the five common green colors were identified by the pixels occupied. The five RGB codes were (0, 43, 0), (51, 85, 51), (51, 85, 0), (102, 128, 51), and (102, 128, 102) in the order from dark to light. The percentage (%) covered by (0, 43, 0) and (102, 128, 102) were significantly different when the steam and chloropicrin treatments were compared to the nontreated control, the steam and chloropicrin treatments were similar (Fig 5). In both steam and chloropicrin treatments, we observed more dark green (0, 43, 0) than light green (102, 128, 102) in both trials (Fig 6), and we quantified the trend using the ratio of dark green area to light green area. Under the mixed-effects model, the log-transformed ratio at each month (from May to July) was substantially different when the steam treatment was compared to the nontreated control (p < 0.0001 in both 2020 and 2021 data) and when the chloropicrin treatment was compared to the control (p < 0.0001 in both 2020 and 2021 data). The difference between the steam and chloropicrin treatments was relatively small but was significant in the 2020–2021 trial (p = 0.980 in the 2020 data and p = 0.041 in the 2021 data). When normality was checked using the Shapiro test, and there was no strong indication of violation after using the log-transformed ratio. the p-values were 0.23 and 0.42 for the 2020 data and the 2021 data, respectively.

Fig 4

The top 25 colors analyzed with Fig 2.

L, relatively light green (R, G, B = 102, 128, 102); D, relatively dark green (R, G, B = 0, 43, 0). C, Non-treated control; S, Steam; P, Chloropicrin.

Fig 5

The percent occupied by the five most common green RGB codes.

C, Non-treated control; S, Steam; P, Chloropicrin.

Fig 6

The color ratio of the dark green (R, G, B = 0, 43, 0) to the light green (R, G, B = 102, 128, 102).

C, Non-treated control; S, Steam; P, Chloropicrin.

The trend of the ratio shown in Fig 6 was similar to the trend of the fruit yield (Fig 7). In the 2019–2020 trial, the estimated cumulative yield was 1,005 g/plant on average in the control group, and the average was 581 g/plant and 598 g/plant higher in the steam and chloropicrin treatments, respectively, compared to the nontreated control. In the 2020–2021 trial, it was 1264 g/plant on average in the control group, and it was 794 g/plant and 1095 g/plant higher in the steam and chloropicrin treatments, respectively.

Fig 7

The cumulative total fruit yield during two harvest seasons.

C, Non-treated control; S, Steam; P, Chloropicrin.

Fig 8 displays that the ratio (dark green area to light green area) is related with the total fruit yield in both the 2019–2020 l and 2020–2021 trials, and estimated coefficient of determination were R2 = 0.78 and 0.46, respectively. The coefficient of determination in 2020–2021 trial was lower than that in 2019–2020 trial but the estimated slope was steeper.

Fig 8

The total fruit yield versus the ratio of dark green area to light green area observed in May per experimental unit (4 control, 4 steam, and 4 chloropicrin for both years 2020 and 2021; r2 = 0.78 and 0.46, respectively).

Discussion

The both trials, the difference of the soil temperature in the steam treatments were caused by the difference of the steam machines (Fig 1). As described in the Materials and Methods section, the steam heat penetrated deeper in 2019–2020 trial than in 2020–2021 trial. But the steam heat persisted longer in the 2020–2021 than in 2019–2020 trial. This difference of the soil temperature may be the cause of the different results between the two trials, and there are many previous studies proving this.

Soil borne pests are important factors that harm the health of crops. In the strawberry industry, Pythium and Verticillium spp. are important soilborne diseases. Pythium spp. causes black root rot and can reduce fruit yield while Verticillium spp. causes vascular deterioration and wilting that results in crop death, [19, 20]. Weeds are a major limitation in efficient crop production as they result in yield loss and quality reductions due to competition between crops and weeds and hand removal of weeds is expensive. In the trials, burclover (Medicago polymorpha), burning nettle (Urtica urens), chickweed (Stellaria media), common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), lesser swinecress (Lepidium didymum), and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) are common weeds [21]. Steam has been applied for control of pests such as the phytopathogens and weeds in strawberry fields as an environment friendly alternative to MB [4-6]. To reduce important strawberry pathogens and weed seedling emergence, soil must be treated with steam at 60°C for 3 minutes [22, 23]. The soil temperature observed in this experiment was maintained at 65°C for more than 20 minutes to a depth of 25 cm, which was enough to reduce phytopathogens and weed seed viability as demonstrated in previous studies [3, 4, 24]. Production of strawberry fruit in soils disinfested with steam was higher than that of the non-treated control [4, 6, 7]. Our results indicated that the total fruit yield in the steam treatment was similar to that in the chloropicrin treatment but also the yield was highly correlated with the ratio of dark green area to light green area.

The use of digital image analysis has been increasing dramatically over the last several years in the plant sciences such as agriculture, horticulture, pathology, forestry, and ecology, as software has become more sophisticated and user-friendly [25]. It is not only for convenience but also a sensitive method of measuring plant vigor in a timely manner. Therefore, digital data collection is more efficient than traditional methods. Plant growth can be rapid. Increased efficiency means we are less likely to miss a key time when there are real differences between treatments. Kim et al. [9] applied the bootstrapping method to analyze RGB codes for comparing weed densities instead of manual counts. In that study, the focus was the proportion of green area but here our focus was the degree of greenness (relatively dark or light). Image analysis to measure plant size is subject to error due to need for a fixed distance from the target. Our method avoided this problem by focusing on the degree of greenness which did not require a fixed distance from the leaf to determine plant health.

Image analysis techniques are capable of detecting small differences in the distribution of various colors among the images which is challenging for humans to perform. For instance, in case of strawberry plants, there are two major colors, green in the chlorophylls and red in the anthocyanins. The green and red colors in strawberry plants are mainly found in leaves and fruits, respectively. We decided to analyze only green color to evaluate plant health because the green color of strawberry plant leaves reflects the chlorophyll reflectance and nutrient status [26]. Furthermore, leaf greenness (SPAD value) and root fresh weight of strawberry plants were positively correlated to chlorophyll reflectance [27]. Where there are biotic and abiotic stresses to plants, the leaves of the plants will be light green. Our image analysis results suggest that there is a relationship between two specific green colors and the health and yield of strawberry plants (Table 1). Sun et al. [28] reported that rice leaves become greener and larger with a greater nitrogen supplement. So, if the strawberry roots and vascular system are growing in soils with few pathogens then they can more readily uptake nutrients like nitrogen and would be darker green. Moreover, no difference of the total pixel percentage of the dark and light green colors in the steam and chloropicrin treatments might mean that the steam application was as effective as the chloropicrin application for soil disinfestation as the chloropicrin application. Fig 5 also showed that the dark green (R, G, B = 0, 43, 0) is more abundant than the light green (R, G, B = 102, 128, 102) in the steam and chloropicrin treatments, and the reverse is shown in the control. Hence, the R/G and B/G values of the steam and chloropicrin treatments were close to zero, compared to one in the nontreated control. For instance, the R/G and B/G values of the dark green (R, G, B = 0, 43, 0) is 0 and the values of the light green (R, G, B = 102, 128, 102) are 0.80.

Regarding the steam application of bootstrapping to the image analysis, Kim et al. [9] found that the bootstrap method applied to RGB codes results in higher statistical power than the Dunnett-Tukey-Kramer test which is a traditional multiple comparison test. If such a traditional statistical test was applied to this study, it would treat the entire data as a sample of size four per treatment which would be too scarce to compare the two treatments to the control. Instead, we decided to utilize the RGB codes and the pixels to increase statistical information for the comparisons (Fig 5). Consequently, the method well demonstrated the efficacy of steam and chloropicrin in our study.

Conclusion

Steam application improved the growth and productivity of strawberry plants as much as the commercial fumigant chloropicrin. The image analysis with the appropriate statistical strategy was very useful for the comparison of the plant growth among the treatments, and it was easier and faster than traditional manual methods such as counting and weighing. Taking pictures in large fields, however, is still a time-consuming process. In a future study, an unmanned aerial vehicle will overcome the posed challenge, and we will need to test for the reliability. Advancements in technological data collection, image analysis method, and statistical strategy will increase the accuracy and efficiency of plant growth measurement and fruit yield prediction.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

19 May 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Miquel Vall-llosera Camps

Senior Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3.  We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The present manuscript deals with the soil disinfestation efficacy assessment using color digital photography. The manuscript is readable and some interesting results were obtained. However, I have some concerns like

The treatments applied for the year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 were significantly different. Under such a situation, can these be compared? This is clearly visible from Fig. 3. In year 2019-2020, Chloropicrin and steam treatments were almost similar while it was different in 2020-2021.

The classification of RGB codes in the order from dark to light green seems quite arbitrary. It should be concrete based on solid statistics or physics principle.

My specific comments are

L27: “We hypothesized that plant health could be quantified and treatments differentiated” to “We hypothesized that plant health could be quantified and treatments can be differentiated”

L64-66: Delete “Nitrogen and magnesium deficiencies in strawberry plants results in low chlorophyll concentration in leaves [12]”

L82: Provide the full form of “OM”

L87: Was “Chloropicrin” sprayed on bare soil?

L98: “(PicClor 60 EC) was applied October 24, 2020” to “(PicClor 60 EC) was applied on October 24, 2020”

L110: What do you mean by RGB codes and area occupied by RGB code? Please describe in detail.

L125: Was the weight calculated for each color or only for green?

L141: Which packages were used in R software? Test the normality of the ratio and log transformed ratio.

L192: “correlation coefficients” to “coefficient of determination”

L193: “correlation coefficients” to “coefficient of determination”

L202: “Soil pests” to “Soil borne pests”

L206-207: “weeds and hand removal is expensive.” To “weeds. Hand removal of weeds is expensive.”

L211: “environmentally friendly” to “environment friendly”

L226-227: Sentence is incomplete

L238-242: Meaningless, please rewrite.

L247-248: “effective of a method of soil disinfestation as the chloropicrin application.” To “effective as the chloropicrin application for soil disinfestation.”

L250: “treasures” to “treatments”

L253: For which treatment?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Bappa Das

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10 Jun 2022

The treatments applied for the year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 were significantly different. Under such a situation, can these be compared? This is clearly visible from Fig. 3. In year 2019-2020, Chloropicrin and steam treatments were almost similar while it was different in 2020-2021.

Response

Thank you for your comment. Though the treatment applications were not identical, we observed similar trends between the two seasons. In Fig 3., the locations (centers) of the distributions have the same order. In addition, Figs 2, 5, 6, and 7 show similar trends between S and P which are distinguishable from C (The yields both years followed the same trends.). Therefore, the overall effect of S and C on the plant health (observed by the colors) and the productivity are similar. Here is another important point that we needed to include in the discussion. We are aware that the both trials, the difference of the soil temperature in the steam treatments were caused by the difference of the steam machines (Fig. 1). This difference of the soil temperature may be the cause of the different results between the two trials, and there are many previous studies proving this. This inserted into the discussion (Line 215).

The classification of RGB codes in the order from dark to light green seems quite arbitrary. It should be concrete based on solid statistics or physics principle.

Response

Our choice was based on statistics (i.e., calculated from the data). In general, based upon our knowledge, there are no definite classifications of “dark green” and “light green,” and there are a number of (complicated) ways to combine R, G, and B for color analysis (e.g., Angulo & Serra, 2007). Instead of using the complicated formulas, which were not helpful in our study, we matched observed images and distributions of RGB codes. While green colors have the common property of G > R and G > B, a green color tends to be darker when (R + B) / G is close to zero (i.e., R/G and B/G are close to zero). It is statically shown in Fig 3, and the observed pattern (the order) is consistent between the two seasons. We added this explanation in the section of statistical method (Line 118) and in the section of results (Line 155).

L110: What do you mean by RGB codes and area occupied by RGB code? Please describe in detail.

Response

Line 109 ‘The image analysis program outputs RGB codes per image file and areas (pixels) occupied by each RGB code.’ to ‘The image analysis program outputs RGB codes and the number of pixels.’

L126: Was the weight calculated for each color or only for green?

Response

The weights were only for green, and we added one sentence (Line 130). Thank you for helping us making the manuscript clearer.

L141: Which packages were used in R software? Test the normality of the ratio and log transformed ratio.

Response

lmer and lmerTest packages were used for the mixed-effects model (Bates et al., 2015; Kuznetsova et al., 2017), and we added the related references. Regarding the normality, we tested the normality of the log-transformed ratio because it is what we used in the analysis. We did not observe severe violations of normality. The p-values calculated from the Shapiro test were 0.23 and 0.42 for the 2020 data and the 2021 data, respectively, and we reported in the results section (Line 146). Thank you.

L27: “We hypothesized that plant health could be quantified and treatments differentiated” to “We hypothesized that plant health could be quantified and treatments can be differentiated”

L64-66: Delete “Nitrogen and magnesium deficiencies in strawberry plants results in low chlorophyll concentration in leaves [12]”

L82: Provide the full form of “OM”

L87: Was “Chloropicrin” sprayed on bare soil?

L98: “(PicClor 60 EC) was applied October 24, 2020” to “(PicClor 60 EC) was applied on October 24, 2020”

L192: “correlation coefficients” to “coefficient of determination”

L193: “correlation coefficients” to “coefficient of determination”

L202: “Soil pests” to “Soil borne pests”

L206-207: “weeds and hand removal is expensive.” To “weeds. Hand removal of weeds is expensive.”

L211: “environmentally friendly” to “environment friendly”

L226-227: Sentence is incomplete

L238-242: Meaningless, please rewrite.

L247-248: “effective of a method of soil disinfestation as the chloropicrin application.” To “effective as the chloropicrin application for soil disinfestation.”

L250: “treasures” to “treatments”

L253: For which treatment?

Response

Revised as suggested.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Jul 2022

A potential relationship between soil disinfestation efficacy and leaf green reflectance

PONE-D-22-01998R1

Dear Dr. Kim,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Aradhana Mishra, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors have addressed all the comments satisfactorily and I can suggest the publication of the manuscript in Plos One.

Reviewer #2: In the manuscript entitled "A potential relationship between soil disinfestation efficacy and leaf green reflectance", the authors have evaluated steam as an alternative method of soil disinfestation to fumigation. In my opinion, the manuscript is sound and has the potential to be published.

Minor comment

Please include the full form of any abbreviations used in the abstract of this manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Bappa Das

Reviewer #2: Yes: Sahil Mahfooz

**********

14 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-01998R1

A potential relationship between soil disinfestation efficacy and leaf green reflectance

Dear Dr. Kim:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Aradhana Mishra

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE