SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ÇOMÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1

Evaluation of RGB-Derived Indices for Cotton Leaf Phenotyping under a Standardized Imaging Setup

Standartlaştırılmış Bir Görüntüleme Düzeneği Altında Pamuk Yaprağı Fenotiplemesinde RGB-Türevli İndekslerin Değerlendirilmesi

Uğur Çakaloğulları(EGE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-4175-1815
Pages
151–162
Publication Date
2026-06-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Standardized consumer RGB imaging can therefore support rapid first-pass screening of pigment- and structure-related leaf traits.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Low-cost RGB imaging is accessible for phenotyping, but color varies with devices and illumination.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Leaves (n=80) from three growth-chamber experiments were imaged in a closed light-tent with an in-frame gray/white/black card, then corrected in Adobe Photoshop.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Standardized consumer RGB imaging can therefore support rapid first-pass screening of pigment- and structure-related leaf traits.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:pamuk · RGB görüntüleme · düşük maliyetli fenotipleme

Abstract

Low-cost RGB imaging is accessible for phenotyping, but color varies with devices and illumination. We tested whether RGB-derived indices from a standardized smartphone setup can proxy cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) leaf traits at the early seedling stage. Leaves (n=80) from three growth-chamber experiments were imaged in a closed light-tent with an in-frame gray/white/black card, then corrected in Adobe Photoshop. Mean leaf RGB values (manual ROIs) were used to compute 15 RGB/CIELAB indices, which were screened against SPAD, specific leaf area (SLA), vein density, water content (WC), stomatal density, and stomatal size using Pearson r and second-order regression (adj. R², NRMSE). The strongest relationships were for SLA (h_ab; adj. R²=0.666), vein density (TGI; adj. R²=0.610), and SPAD (G; adj. R²=0.558). WC was moderately associated with c_ab (adj. R²=0.344), while stomatal traits were weakly explained, consistent with scale limits of top-down mean-color metrics. Standardized consumer RGB imaging can therefore support rapid first-pass screening of pigment- and structure-related leaf traits.

Özet

Düşük maliyetli RGB görüntüleme fenotipleme için erişilebilir olsa da renk, cihaz ve aydınlatma koşullarına bağlı değişkenlik gösterebilir. Bu çalışmada, standart bir akıllı telefon çekim düzeniyle elde edilen RGB-türevli indekslerin, erken fide dönemindeki pamuk (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yaprak özellikleri için optik proxy olma potansiyeli test edildi. Üç büyüme odası deneyinden alınan yapraklar (n=80) kapalı bir çekim çadırında, kadraj içi gri/beyaz/siyah kart ile görüntülendi ve Adobe Photoshop’ta referans-temelli düzeltildi. Manuel ROI’lardan ortalama RGB değerleri çıkarılarak 15 RGB/CIELAB indeks hesaplandı; SPAD, spesifik yaprak alanı (SLA), damar yoğunluğu, su içeriği (WC), stoma yoğunluğu ve stoma boyutu ile Pearson r ve ikinci dereceden regresyon (adj. R², NRMSE) kullanılarak tarandı. En güçlü ilişkiler SLA–h_ab (adj. R²=0.666), damar yoğunluğu–TGI (adj. R²=0.610) ve SPAD–G (adj. R²=0.558) için bulundu. WC c_ab ile orta düzeyde ilişkiliyken (adj. R²=0.344), stoma özelliklerinde açıklayıcılık zayıftı tespit edildi. Sonuçlar, tüketici tipi RGB görüntülemenin pigment ve yapısal özellikler için hızlı bir ilk tarama aracı olabileceğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çakaloğulları, U. (2026). Evaluation of RGB-Derived Indices for Cotton Leaf Phenotyping under a Standardized Imaging Setup. ÇOMÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.33202/comuagri.1896851

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (36)

  1. Bendig, J., Yu, K., Aasen, H., Bolten, A., Bennertz, S., Broscheit, J., Gnyp, M. L., & Bareth, G. (2015). Combining UAV-based plant height from crop surface models, visible vegetation indices and near infrared vegetation indices for biomass monitoring in barley. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 39: 79-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.02.012
  2. Borsuk, A. M., & Brodersen, C. R. (2019). The spatial distribution of chlorophyll in leaves. Plant Physiology, 180(3): 1406-1417. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.19.00094
  3. Brodribb, T. J., Feild, T. S., & Jordan, G. J. (2007). Leaf maximum photosynthetic rate and venation are linked by hydraulics. Plant Physiology, 144(4): 1890-1898. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.107.101352
  4. Conley, M. M., Hejl, R. W., Serba, D. D., & Williams, C. F. (2024). Visualizing plant responses: Novel insights possible through affordable imaging techniques in the greenhouse. Sensors, 24(20): 6676. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24206676
  5. Cornelissen, J. H. C., Lavorel, S., Garnier, E., Díaz, S., Buchmann, N., Gurvich, D. E., Reich, P. B., Ter Steege, H., Morgan, H. D., Van Der Heijden, M. G. A., Pausas, J. G., & Poorter, H. (2003). A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Australian Journal of Botany, 51(4): 335-380. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT02124
  6. Croft, H., Chen, J. M., & Zhang, Y. (2014). The applicability of empirical vegetation indices for determining leaf chlorophyll content over different leaf and canopy structures. Ecological Complexity, 17: 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.11.005
  7. Fyfe, C., Yu, S., Zhang, J., & Reid, M. (2025). RGB color correction and gamut limitations in smartphone-based kinetic analysis of chemical reactions. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 417(25): 5753-5770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-025-06021-9
  8. Gitelson, A. A., Kaufman, Y. J., Stark, R., & Rundquist, D. (2002). Novel algorithms for remote estimation of vegetation fraction. Remote Sensing of Environment, 80(1): 76-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00289-9
  9. Green, W. A., & Losada, J. M. (2023). How dense can you be? New automatic measures of vein density in angiosperm leaves. Applications in Plant Sciences, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/aps3.11551
  10. Guijarro, M., Pajares, G., Riomoros, I., Herrera, P. J., Burgos-Artizzu, X., & Ribeiro, A. (2011). Automatic segmentation of relevant textures in agricultural images. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 75(1): 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2010.09.013
  11. Hunt, E. R., Daughtry, C. S. T., Eitel, J. U. H., & Long, D. S. (2011). Remote sensing leaf chlorophyll content using a visible band index. Agronomy Journal, 103(4): 1090-1099. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2010.0395
  12. Hunt, E. R., Doraiswamy, P. C., McMurtrey, J. E., Daughtry, C. S. T., Perry, E. M., & Akhmedov, B. (2013). A visible band index for remote sensing leaf chlorophyll content at the canopy scale. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 21: 103-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2012.07.020 ITU-R, (2015). Recommendation ITU-R BT.601-7: Studio encoding parameters of digital television for standard 4:3 and wide-screen 16:9 aspect ratios.
  13. Jacquemoud, S., & Baret, F. (1990). PROSPECT: A model of leaf optical properties spectra. Remote Sensing of Environment, 34(2): 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(90)90100-Z
  14. Jin, X., Shi, C., Yu, C. Y., Yamada, T., & Sacks, E. J. (2017). Determination of leaf water content by visible and near-infrared spectrometry and multivariate calibration in Miscanthus. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8: 721. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00721
  15. Li, L., Zhang, Q., & Huang, D. (2014). A review of imaging techniques for plant phenotyping. Sensors, 14(11): 20078-20111. https://doi.org/10.3390/s141120078
  16. Li, S., Zheng, F., Koiter, A. J., Kupriyanovich, Y., Lobb, D. A., & Goharrokhi, M. (2025). Using a reference color plate to correct smartphone-derived soil color measurements with different smartphones under different lighting conditions. Soil Systems, 9(3): 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9030093
  17. Ling, Q., Huang, W., & Jarvis, P. (2011). Use of a SPAD-502 meter to measure leaf chlorophyll concentration in Arabidopsis thaliana. Photosynthesis Research, 107(2): 209-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11120-010-9606-0
  18. Liu, Y., Hatou, K., Aihara, T., Kurose, S., Akiyama, T., Kohno, Y., Lu, S., & Omasa, K. (2021). A robust vegetation index based on different UAV RGB images to estimate SPAD values of naked barley leaves. Remote Sensing, 13(4): 686. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13040686
  19. Louhaichi, M., Borman, M. M., & Johnson, D. E. (2001). Spatially located platform and aerial photography for documentation of grazing impacts on wheat. Geocarto International, 16(1): 65-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106040108542184
  20. Lu, J., Eitel, J. U. H., Engels, M., Zhu, J., Ma, Y., Liao, F., Zheng, H., Wang, X., Yao, X., Cheng, T., Zhu, Y., Cao, W., & Tian, Y. (2021). Improving UAV remote sensing of rice plant potassium accumulation by fusing spectral and textural information. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 104: 102592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2021.102592
  21. Markwell, J., Osterman, J. C., & Mitchell, J. L. (1995). Calibration of the Minolta SPAD-502 leaf chlorophyll meter. Photosynthesis Research, 46(3): 467-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00032301
  22. Meyer, G. E., & Neto, J. C. (2008). Verification of color vegetation indices for automated crop imaging applications. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 63(2): 282-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2008.03.009
  23. Millstead, L., Jayakody, H., Patel, H., Kaura, V., Petrie, P. R., Tomasetig, F., & Whitty, M. (2020). Accelerating automated stomata analysis through simplified sample collection and imaging techniques. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11: 580389. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.580389
  24. Mohammadi, V., Ansari, K., Gouton, P., & Attig, H. (2024). Developing a new method of transformation for obtaining XYZ color values from RGB images for agricultural applications. Sensors, 24(23): 7728. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24237728
  25. Omari, M. K., Lee, J., Faqeerzada, M. A., Joshi, R., Park, E., & Cho, B. K. (2020). Digital image-based plant phenotyping: A review. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science. 47(1): 119–130. https://doi.org/10.7744/kjoas.2020004
  26. Richardson, A. D., Hufkens, K., Milliman, T., Aubrecht, D. M., Chen, M., Gray, J. M., Johnston, M. R., Keenan, T. F., Klosterman, S. T., Kosmala, M., Melaas, E. K., Friedl, M. A., & Frolking, S. (2018). Tracking vegetation phenology across diverse North American biomes using PhenoCam imagery. Scientific Data, 5: 180028. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.28
  27. Sack, L., & Scoffoni, C. (2013). Leaf venation: Structure, function, development, evolution, ecology and applications in the past, present and future. New Phytologist, 198(4): 983-1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12253
  28. Sai, N., Bockman, J. P., Chen, H., Watson-Haigh, N., Xu, B., Feng, X., Piechatzek, A., Shen, C., & Gilliham, M. (2023). StomaAI: An efficient and user-friendly tool for measurement of stomatal pores and density using deep computer vision. New Phytologist, 238(2): 904-915. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18765
  29. Seelig, H. D., Hoehn, A., Stodieck, L. S., Klaus, D. M., Adams, W. W., & Emery, W. J. (2008). The assessment of leaf water content using leaf reflectance ratios in the visible, near-, and short-wave-infrared. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(13): 3701-3713. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160701772500
  30. Sunoj, S., Igathinathane, C., Saliendra, N., Hendrickson, J., & Archer, D. (2018). Color calibration of digital images for agriculture and other applications. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 146: 221-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.09.015
  31. Tharuka, M. V. T., Kularathna, K. M., & Ray, R. L. (2025). Application of RGB-Imaging techniques for high-throughput plant phenotyping- A review. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 13(2): 3678-3686. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v13is2.3678-3686.7951
  32. Thrash, T., Lee, H., & Baker, R. L. (2022). A low-cost high-throughput phenotyping system for automatically quantifying foliar area and greenness. Applications in Plant Sciences, 10(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/aps3.11502
  33. Vesali, F., Omid, M., Kaleita, A., & Mobli, H. (2015). Development of an android app to estimate chlorophyll content of corn leaves based on contact imaging. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 116: 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.06.012
  34. Wang, Y., Yang, Z., Gert, K., & Khan, H. A. (2023). The impact of variable illumination on vegetation indices and evaluation of illumination correction methods on chlorophyll content estimation using UAV imagery. Plant Methods, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-023-01028-8
  35. Woebbecke, D. M., Meyer, G. E., von Bargen, K., & Mortensen, D. A. (1995). Color indices for weed identification under various soil, residue, and lighting conditions. Transactions of the ASAE, 38(1): 259-269. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.27838
  36. Zhu, J., Yao, J., Yu, Q., He, W., Xu, C., Qin, G., Zhu, Q., Fan, D., & Zhu, H. (2020). A fast and automatic method for leaf vein network extraction and vein density measurement based on object-oriented classification. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11: 465886. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00499