4.6 Article

Land-based crop phenotyping by image analysis: consistent canopy characterization from inconsistent field illumination

期刊

PLANT METHODS
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s13007-018-0308-5

关键词

Wheat; Colour; Phenomics; NDVI

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Linkage Program [LP140100347]
  2. Australian Research Council [LP140100347] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: One of the main challenges associated with image-based field phenotyping is the variability of illumination. During a single day's imaging session, or between different sessions on different days, the sun moves in and out of cloud cover and has varying intensity. How is one to know from consecutive images alone if a plant has become darker over time, or if the weather conditions have simply changed from clear to overcast? This is a significant problem to address as colour is an important phenotypic trait that can be measured automatically from images. Results: In this work we use an industry standard colour checker to balance the colour in images within and across every day of a field trial conducted over four months in 2016. By ensuring that the colour checker is present in every image we are afforded a'ground truth'to correct for varying illumination conditions across images. We employ a least squares approach to fit a quadratic model for correcting RGB values of an image in such a way that the observed values of the colour checker tiles align with their true values after the transformation. Conclusions: The proposed method is successful in reducing the error between observed and reference colour chart values in all images. Furthermore, the standard deviation of mean canopy colour across multiple days is reduced significantly after colour correction is applied. Finally, we use a number of examples to demonstrate the usefulness of accurate colour measurements in recording phenotypic traits and analysing variation among varieties and treatments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据