Calcium Deficiency Diagnosis in Maize Leaves Using Imaging Methods Based on Texture Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The artificial vision system (AVS) uses image analysis methods that can interpret images and identify nutritional deficiency symptoms in plant, even in the early stages of development. The objective of this study was to propose methods of image processing using analysis by texture to identify the deficiency of calcium (Ca) in maize (Zea mays L.) plants grown in nutrient solution. Plants were grown in nutrient solution in a greenhouse. Calcium doses were 0.0; 1.7; 3.3 and 5.0 mM of Ca, with four replications. Plant and leaf images were sampled at three main stages of maize development: V4 (plants with four leaves fully developed), V6 (plants with six leaves fully developed) and V8 (plants with eight leaves fully developed). Sampled material was split into (i) index leaf (IL) of the growing stage (V4 = leaf 4, V6 = leaf 6, and V8 = leaf 8), and (ii) new leaf (OL), both to image capture and chemical analysis. Such leaves were scanned, processed by the AVS and chemically analyzed. The texture methods used by the AVS to extract deficiency characteristics in the leaf images were: Volumetric Fractal Dimension (VFD), Gabor Wavelet Energy (GWE) and VFD with canonical analysis (VFDCA). The amount of Ca in the solution resulted in variation in the concentration of Ca in NL and IL, allowing the observation of typical symptoms of Ca deficiency. The AVS method was able to identify all Ca levels in leaves, being the GWE the best indicator using color images, scoring 80% of rights in images of the middle section of new leaves in V4.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".