Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36616180›Full record

ArticlePlants (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Machine Learning-Based Crop Stress Detection in Greenhouses.

Angeliki Elvanidi, Nikolaos Katsoulas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Integrating omics databases for enhanced crop breeding.Journal of integrative bioinformatics · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Angeliki ElvanidiLaboratory of Agricultural Constructions and Environmental Control, Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, Fytokou Str., 38446 Volos, Greece.
Nikolaos KatsoulasLaboratory of Agricultural Constructions and Environmental Control, Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, Fytokou Str., 38446 Volos, Greece.

Funding

in the context of the project "Reinforcement of Postdoctoral Researchers-2nd Cycle" (MIS-5033021), implemented by the State Scholarships Foundation (IKΥ) MIS-5033021State Scholarships Foundation MIS-5033021This research is co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Social FundESF) through the Operational Programme «Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning» MIS-5033021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Greenhouse climate control systems are usually based on greenhouse microclimate settings to exert any control. However, to save energy, water and nutrients, additional parameters related to crop performance and physiology will have to be considered. In addition, detecting crop stress before it is clearly visible by naked eye is an advantage that could aid in microclimate control. In this study, a Machine Learning (ML) model which takes into account microclimate and crop physiological data to detect different types of crop stress was developed and tested. For this purpose, a multi-sensor platform was used to record tomato plant physiological characteristics under different fertigation and air temperature conditions. The innovation of the current model lies in the integration of photosynthesis rate (Ps) values estimated by means of remote sensing using a photochemical reflectance index (PRI). Through this process, the time-series Ps data were combined with crop leaf temperature and microclimate data by means of the ML model. Two different algorithms were evaluated: Gradient Boosting (GB) and MultiLayer perceptron (MLP). Two runs with different structures took place for each algorithm. In RUN 1, there were more feature inputs than the outputs to build a model with high predictive accuracy. However, in order to simplify the process and develop a user-friendly approach, a second, different run was carried out. Thus, in RUN 2, the inputs were fewer than the outputs, and that is why the performance of the model in this case was lower than in the case of RUN 1. Particularly, MLP showed 91% and 83% accuracy in the training sample, and 89% and 82% in testing sample, for RUNs 1 and 2, respectively. GB showed 100% accuracy in the training sample for both runs, and 91% and 83% in testing sample in RUN 1 and RUN 2, respectively. To improve the accuracy of RUN 2, a larger database is required. Both models, however, could easily be incorporated into existing greenhouse climate monitoring and control systems, replacing human experience in detecting greenhouse crop stress conditions.

Indexed as

gradient boostingmicroclimatemultilayer perceptronphotosynthesis ratesoft sensor

Identifiers

PMID36616180
PMCPMC9824263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.