↓ Skip to main content

Detection of Bacterial Infection in Melon Plants by Classification Methods Based on Imaging Data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Detection of Bacterial Infection in Melon Plants by Classification Methods Based on Imaging Data
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2018.00164
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mónica Pineda, María L. Pérez-Bueno, Matilde Barón

Abstract

The bacteriumDickeya dadantiiis responsible of important economic losses in crop yield worldwide. In melon leaves,D. dadantiiproduced multiple necrotic spots surrounded by a chlorotic halo, followed by necrosis of the whole infiltrated area and chlorosis in the surrounding tissues. The extent of these symptoms, as well as the day of appearance, was dose-dependent. Several imaging techniques (variable chlorophyll fluorescence, multicolor fluorescence, and thermography) provided spatial and temporal information about alterations in the primary and secondary metabolism, as well as the stomatal activity in the infected leaves. Detection of diseased leaves was carried out by using machine learning on the numerical data provided by these imaging techniques. Mathematical algorithms based on data from infiltrated areas offered 96.5 to 99.1% accuracy when classifying them as mock vs. bacteria-infiltrated. These algorithms also showed a high performance of classification of whole leaves, providing accuracy values of up to 96%. Thus, the detection of disease on whole leaves by a model trained on infiltrated areas appears as a reliable method that could be scaled-up for use in plant breeding programs or precision agriculture.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Lecturer 3 3%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 25 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 28%
Engineering 12 14%
Computer Science 11 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 29 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2019.
All research outputs
#12,752,356
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#5,057
of 20,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,294
of 446,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#158
of 468 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,564 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 468 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.