↓ Skip to main content

Multicolor Fluorescence Imaging as a Candidate for Disease Detection in Plant Phenotyping

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, December 2016
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 (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
Multicolor Fluorescence Imaging as a Candidate for Disease Detection in Plant Phenotyping
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2016.01790
Pubmed ID
Authors

María L. Pérez-Bueno, Mónica Pineda, Francisco M. Cabeza, Matilde Barón

Abstract

The negative impact of conventional farming on environment and human health make improvements on farming management mandatory. Imaging techniques are implemented in remote sensing for monitoring crop fields and plant phenotyping programs. The increasingly large size and complexity of the data obtained by these techniques, makes the implementation of powerful mathematical tools necessary in order to identify informative parameters and to apply them in precision agriculture. Multicolor fluorescence imaging is a useful approach for the study of plant defense responses to stress factors at bench scale. However, it has not been fully applied to plant phenotyping. This work evaluates the possible application of multicolor fluorescence imaging in combination with thermography for the particular case of zucchini plants affected by soft-rot, caused by Dickeya dadantii. Several statistical models -based on logistic regression analysis (LRA) and artificial neural networks (ANN)- were obtained for the experimental system zucchini-D. dadantii, which classify new samples as "healthy" or "infected." The LRA worked best in identifying high dose-infiltrated leaves (in infiltrated and non-infiltrated areas) whereas ANN offered a higher accuracy at identifying low dose-infiltrated areas. To assess the applicability of these results to cucurbits in a more general way, these models were validated for melon infected by the same pathogen, achieving accurate predictions for the infiltrated areas. The values of accuracy achieved are comparable to those found in the literature for classifiers identifying other infections based on data obtained by different techniques. Thus, MCFI in combination with thermography prove useful at providing data at lab scale that can be analyzed by machine learning. This approach could be scaled up to be applied in plant phenotyping.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 129 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 17%
Student > Master 19 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 30 23%
Unknown 28 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 36%
Computer Science 15 11%
Engineering 9 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 35 27%
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
#12,666,681
of 22,912,409 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#5,025
of 20,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,156
of 415,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#104
of 493 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,912,409 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 20,338 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 415,654 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 493 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.