Vineyard water status assessment using on-the-go thermal imaging and machine learning

PLoS ONE

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2018, Pages

  Gutiérrez, Salvador ^a   Diago, María P ^a   Fernández Novales, Juan ^a   Tardaguila, Javier ^a  

^a Servicio de Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico Agroalimentario   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CANOPY; DNA POLYMORPHISM; GRAPE; MACHINE LEARNING; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; SEASON; STATISTICS; STEM WATER POTENTIAL; VALIDATION PROCESS; VINEYARD; WATER AVAILABILITY; WATER STRESS; WINE INDUSTRY; ALGORITHM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CROP; DEHYDRATION; IRRIGATION (AGRICULTURE); VITIS; WINE;

AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION; ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; DEHYDRATION; MACHINE LEARNING; VITIS; WINE;

EID: 85041320702     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192037     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Keller M. The science of grapevines: anatomy and physiology. Academic Press; 2015.
2. Acevedo-Opazo C, Tisseyre B, Guillaume S, Ojeda H. The potential of high spatial resolution information to define within-vineyard zones related to vine water status. Precision Agriculture. 2008; 9(5):285–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-008-9073-1
3. Acevedo-Opazo C, Tisseyre B, Taylor J, Ojeda H, Guillaume S. A model for the spatial prediction of water status in vines (Vitis vinifera L.) using high resolution ancillary information. Precision Agriculture. 2010; 11(4):358–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-010-9164-7
4. Fernández J. Plant-based sensing to monitor water stress: Applicability to commercial orchards. Agricultural water management. 2014; 142:99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.04.017
5. Jones HG. Irrigation scheduling: advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods. Journal of experimental botany. 2004; 55(407):2427–2436. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erh213 PMID: 15286143
6. Jones HG, Stoll M, Santos T, De Sousa C, Chaves MM, Grant OM. Use of infrared thermography for monitoring stomatal closure in the field: application to grapevine. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2002; 53(378):2249–2260. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erf083 PMID: 12379792
7. Costa JM, Grant O, Chaves M. Use of thermal imaging in viticulture: current application and future prospects. Springer; 2010.
8. Costa JM, Grant OM, Chaves MM. Thermography to explore plant—environment interactions. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2013; 64(13):3937–3949. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert029 PMID: 23599272
9. Jones HG. Use of infrared thermometry for estimation of stomatal conductance as a possible aid to irrigation scheduling. Agricultural and forest meteorology. 1999; 95(3):139–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0168-1923(99)00030-1
10. Grant OM, Tronina ?, Jones HG, Chaves MM. Exploring thermal imaging variables for the detection of stress responses in grapevine under different irrigation regimes. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2007; 58(4):815–825. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl153 PMID: 17032729
11. Costa JM, Ortuño MF, Lopes CM, Chaves MM. Grapevine varieties exhibiting differences in stomatal response to water deficit. Functional Plant Biology. 2012; 39(3):179–189. https://doi.org/10.1071/ FP11156
12. Fuentes S, De Bei R, Pech J, Tyerman S. Computational water stress indices obtained from thermal image analysis of grapevine canopies. Irrigation Science. 2012; 30(6):523–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00271-012-0375-8
13. Jones HG, Leinonen I. Thermal imaging for the study of plant water relations. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology. 2003; 59(3):205–217. https://doi.org/10.2480/agrmet.59.205
14. Grant OM, Chaves MM, Jones HG. Optimizing thermal imaging as a technique for detecting stomatal closure induced by drought stress under greenhouse conditions. Physiologia Plantarum. 2006; 127 (3):507–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2006.00686.x
15. Idso S, Jackson R, Pinter P, Reginato R, Hatfield J. Normalizing the stress-degree-day parameter for environmental variability. Agricultural Meteorology. 1981; 24:45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-1571 (81)90032-7
16. Cohen Y, Alchanatis V, Sela E, Saranga Y, Cohen S, Meron M, et al. Crop water status estimation using thermography: Multi-year model development using ground-based thermal images. Precision Agriculture. 2015; 16(3):311–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-014-9378-1
17. Cohen Y, Alchanatis V, Saranga Y, Rosenberg O, Sela E, Bosak A. Mapping water status based on aerial thermal imagery: comparison of methodologies for upscaling from a single leaf to commercial fields. Precision Agriculture. 2016; p. 1–22.
18. Meron M, Tsipris J, Orlov V, Alchanatis V, Cohen Y. Crop water stress mapping for site-specific irrigation by thermal imagery and artificial reference surfaces. Precision agriculture. 2010; 11(2):148–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-009-9153-x
19. Pou A, Diago MP, Medrano H, Baluja J, Tardaguila J. Validation of thermal indices for water status identification in grapevine. Agricultural water management. 2014; 134:60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.11.010
20. Grant O, Ochagavía H, Baluja J, Diago M, Tardáguila J. Thermal imaging to detect spatial and temporal variation in the water status of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology. 2016; 91(1):43–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2015.1110991
21. Bellvert J, Zarco-Tejada PJ, Girona J, Fereres E. Mapping crop water stress index in a ‘Pinot-noir’ vineyard: comparing ground measurements with thermal remote sensing imagery from an unmanned aerial vehicle. Precision agriculture. 2014; 15(4):361–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-013-9334-5
22. Bellvert J, Marsal J, Girona J, Zarco-Tejada PJ. Seasonal evolution of crop water stress index in grapevine varieties determined with high-resolution remote sensing thermal imagery. Irrigation Science. 2015; 33(2):81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-014-0456-y
23. Bellvert J, Zarco-Tejada PJ, Marsal J, Girona J, González-Dugo V, Fereres E. Vineyard irrigation scheduling based on airborne thermal imagery and water potential thresholds. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research. 2016; 22(2):307–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12173
24. Sepúlveda-Reyes D, Ingram B, Bardeen M, Zúñiga M, Ortega-Farías S, Poblete-Echeverría C. Selecting Canopy Zones and Thresholding Approaches to Assess Grapevine Water Status by Using Aerial and Ground-Based Thermal Imaging. Remote Sensing. 2016; 8(10):822. https://doi.org/10.3390/ rs8100822
25. Diago M, Bellincontro A, Scheidweiler M, Tardaguila J, Tittmann S, Stoll M. Future opportunities of proximal near infrared spectroscopy approaches to determine the variability of vineyard water status. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research. 2017; 23(3):409–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12283
26. Fernández-Novales J, Tardaguila J, Gutiérrez S, Marañón M, Diago MP. In field quantification and discrimination of different vineyard water regimes by on-the-go NIR spectroscopy. Biosystems Engineering. 2017;.
27. Han J, Pei J, Kamber M. Data mining: concepts and techniques. Elsevier; 2011.
28. Witten IH, Frank E, Hall MA, Pal CJ. Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann; 2016.
29. Gutiérrez S, Tardaguila J, Fernández-Novales J, Diago MP. Support vector machine and artificial neural network models for the classification of grapevine varieties using a portable NIR spectrophotometer. PloS one. 2015; 10(11):e0143197. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143197 PMID: 26600316
30. Brillante L, Gaiotti F, Lovat L, Vincenzi S, Giacosa S, Torchio F, et al. Investigating the use of gradient boosting machine, random forest and their ensemble to predict skin flavonoid content from berry physical—mechanical characteristics in wine grapes. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2015; 117:186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.07.017
31. Brillante L, Bois B, Mathieu O, Lévêque J. Electrical imaging of soil water availability to grapevine: a benchmark experiment of several machine-learning techniques. Precision Agriculture. 2016; 17 (6):637–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-016-9441-1
32. Brillante L, Mathieu O, Lévêque J, Bois B. Ecophysiological Modeling of Grapevine Water Stress in Burgundy Terroirs by a Machine-Learning Approach. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016; 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00796 PMID: 27375651
33. Gutiérrez S, Tardaguila J, Fernández-Novales J, Diago MP. Data mining and NIR spectroscopy in Viticulture: Applications for plant phenotyping under field conditions. Sensors. 2016; 16(2):236. https://doi.org/10.3390/s16020236 PMID: 26891304
34. Rodriguez JJ, Kuncheva LI, Alonso CJ. Rotation forest: A new classifier ensemble method. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence. 2006; 28(10):1619–1630. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2006.211 PMID: 16986543
35. Hinkelmann K, Kempthorne O. Randomized Block Designs, in Design and Analysis of Experiments: Introduction to Experimental Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2007.
36. Harrison-Murray R. An electrical sensor for potential transpiration: principle and prototype. Journal of Horticultural Science. 1991; 66(2):141–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221589.1991.11516136
37. Jones H. Plants and Microclimate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1992;.
38. Murray FW. On the Computation of Saturation Vapor Pressure. Journal of Applied Meteorology. 1967; 6:203–204. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1967)006%3C0203:OTCOSV%3E2.0.CO;2
39. Scholander PF, Bradstreet ED, Hemmingsen E, Hammel H. Sap pressure in vascular plants negative hydrostatic pressure can be measured in plants. Science. 1965; 148(3668):339–346. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.148.3668.339 PMID: 17832103
40. Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten IH. The WEKA Data Mining Software: An Update. SIGKDD Explorations. 2009; 11(1):10–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/1656274.1656278
41. Möller M, Alchanatis V, Cohen Y, Meron M, Tsipris J, Naor A, et al. Use of thermal and visible imagery for estimating crop water status of irrigated grapevine. Journal of experimental botany. 2006; 58 (4):827–838. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl115 PMID: 16968884
42. Soar CJ, Speirs J, Maffei S, Penrose A, McCarthy MG, Loveys B. Grape vine varieties Shiraz and Gre-nache differ in their stomatal response to VPD: apparent links with ABA physiology and gene expression in leaf tissue. Australian journal of grape and wine research. 2006; 12(1):2–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2006.tb00038.x
43. Schultz H, Stoll M. Some critical issues in environmental physiology of grapevines: future challenges and current limitations. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research. 2010; 16(s1):4–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2009.00074.x
44. Prieto JA, Lebon É, Ojeda H. Stomatal behavior of different grapevine cultivars in response to soil water status and air water vapor pressure deficit. OENO One. 2010; 44(1):9–20. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2010.44.1.1459
45. Intrigliolo D, Lakso A. Effects of light interception and canopy orientation on grapevine water status and canopy gas exchange. In: VI International Symposium on Irrigation of Horticultural Crops 889; 2009. p. 99–104.
46. Baluja J, Diago MP, Balda P, Zorer R, Meggio F, Morales F, et al. Assessment of vineyard water status variability by thermal and multispectral imagery using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Irrigation Science. 2012; 30(6):511–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-012-0382-9
47. Tardaguila J, Fernández-Novales J, Gutiérrez S, Diago MP. Non-destructive assessment of grapevine water status in the field using a portable NIR spectrophotometer. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2017;. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8241
48. De Bei R, Cozzolino D, Sullivan W, Cynkar W, Fuentes S, Dambergs R, et al. Non-destructive measurement of grapevine water potential using near infrared spectroscopy. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research. 2011; 17(1):62–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2010.00117.x
49. Santos AO, Kaye O. Grapevine leaf water potential based upon near infrared spectroscopy. Scientia Agricola. 2009; 66(3):287–292. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162009000300001