Predicting terpene content in dried conifer shoots using near infrared spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terpenes are phytochemicals found in multiple plant genera, especially aromatic herbs and conifers. Terpene content quantification is costly and complex, requiring the extraction of oil content and gas chromatography analyses. Near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy could provide an alternative quantitative method, especially if calibration can be developed with the spectra of dried plant material, which are easier and faster to acquire than oil-based spectra. Here, multispecies NIR spectroscopy calibrations were developed for total terpene content (mono- and sesquiterpenes) and for specific terpenes (α-pinene, β-pinene and myrcene) with five conifers species ( Picea glauca, Picea rubens, Pinus resinosa, Pinus strobus and Thuja occidentalis). The terpene content of fresh shoot samples was quantified with gas chromatography. The NIR spectra were measured on freeze-dried samples (n = 137). Using a subset of the samples, modified partial least squares regressions of total terpene and the three individual terpenes content were generated as a functions of the NIR spectra. The standard errors of the internal cross-validations (values between 0.25 and 2.28) and the ratio of prediction to deviation ratios (RPD values between 2.20 and 2.38) indicate that all calibrations have similar accuracy. The independent validations, however, suggest that the calibrations for total terpene and α-pinene content are more accurate (respective coefficient of determination: r 2 = 0.85 and 0.82). In contrast, calibrations for β-pinene and myrcene had a low accuracy (respectively: r 2 = 0.62 and 0.08), potentially because of the low concentration of these terpenes in the species studied. The calibration model fits (i.e., r 2 ) are comparable to previously published calibration using the spectra of dried shoot samples and demonstrate the potential of this method for terpenes in conifer samples. The calibration method used could be useful in several other domains (e.g. seedling breeding program, industrial), because of the wide distribution of terpenes and especially of pinenes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".