4.7 Article

Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy as a fast and non-destructive tool to predict foliar organic constituents of several woody species

Journal

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 386, Issue 6, Pages 1823-1833

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-006-0816-4

Keywords

near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS); organic constituents; leaf tissue; woody species

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) was used to estimate N, neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF), lignin and cellulose contents in leaves of a heterogeneous group of 17 woody species from the Central Western region of the Iberian Peninsula. The sample set consisted of 182 samples of leaves of deciduous and evergreen species, showing a wide range of concentrations determined by reference methods: 6.60-35.2 g kg(-1)(N), 15.5-66.0% (NDF), 10.2-57.3% (ADF), 3.45-27.4% (lignin) and 5.79-31.3% (cellulose). Reflectance spectra, obtained for samples of dried and ground leaves, were recorded as log1/R (R=reflectance) from 1,100 to 2,500 nm. NIRS calibrations were developed using multiple linear (MLR) and partial least-squares (PLSR) regressions, and tested by external validation. Spectral data were transformed to the first and second derivative (1D, 2D). The PLSR method and derivative transformations provided the best statistics and showed lower standard errors of calibration (SEC) and higher coefficients of multiple determination (R-2). In the external validation the standard errors of prediction (SEP) were 0.76 g kg(-1) (N), 2.11% (NDF), 1.47% (ADF), 0.85% (lignin) and 0.86% (cellulose). The results obtained show that NIRS is very effective for the estimation of these organic constituents in leaf tissue of woody species. This technique can be used in ecological or ecophysiological studies as an alternative to the more time-consuming standard methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available