Author Affiliations
1College of Resources and Environmental Science, Xinjiang University, Urumqi , Xinjiang 830046, China2Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology of Ministry of Education, Urumqi , Xinjiang 830046, China3Key Laboratory for Wisdom City and Environmental Modeling, Urumqi , Xinjiang 830046, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Study area diagram and sampling area distribution
Fig. 2. Statistics of chlorophyll content in cotton leaves
Fig. 3. Spectral characteristics of cotton leaves. (a) Spectral reflectance of long-staple cotton with different chlorophyll contents; (b) spectral reflectance of different chlorophyll contents in the visible light range
Fig. 4. Changes of spectrum after mathematical transformation. (a) R; (b) R′; (c) Rcr
Fig. 5. Correlation between chlorophyll contents and reflectances. (a) R; (b) R′; (c) Rcr
Fig. 6. Optimized spectral indices. (a) DSI; (b) NDSI; (c) RSI
Fig. 7. Estimation R2 of SPAD using different SVM kernels. (a) Calibration dataset; (b) validation dataset
Fig. 8. SVM regression model's fitting analysis result diagrams of measured and predicted values
Index type | Formula | Reference |
---|
VI | SSR=R750/R710 | [29] | NNDVI=(R750- R705)/ R750+R705) | [30] | MMTCI=(R750-R710)/(R710-R680) | [31] | CCARI=[(R700-R670)-0.2×(R700-R550)] | [32] | OSI | RRSI(λ1,λ2)=Rλ1/Rλ2 | | DDSI(λ1,λ2)=Rλ1-Rλ2 | [33] | NNDSI(λ1,λ2)=(Rλ1-Rλ2)/(Rλ1+Rλ2) | |
|
Table 1. Index calculation formulas
Algorithm | Characteristic band /nm | Correlation coefficient | Mean |
---|
R | 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, | ‒0.43, 0.43, ‒0.43, ‒0.43, ‒0.43, | 0.43 | 717, 718, 719, 720, 721 | ‒0.43, ‒0.43, ‒0.43, ‒0.43, ‒0.43 | R′ | 513, 524, 527, 572, 589, | ‒0.53, ‒0.56, ‒0.58, 0.55, 0.53, | 0.54 | 691, 692, 697, 698, 699 | ‒0.53, ‒0.51, ‒0.54, ‒0.54, ‒0.53 | Rcr | 761, 762, 763, 764, 817, | ‒0.50, ‒0.49, ‒0.46, ‒0.46, ‒0.47, | 0.47 | 818, 823, 829, 830, 831 | ‒0.47, ‒0.46, ‒0.48, ‒0.47, ‒0.46 |
|
Table 2. Cotton spectral characteristic bands and correlation coefficients
Vegetation index | R | R′ | Rcr |
---|
SR | 0.35** | 0.41** | 0.35** | NDVI | 0.27* | 0.46** | 0.28* | MTCI | 0.49** | 0.46** | 0.49** | CARI | -0.52** | -0.51** | -0.42** |
|
Table 3. Correlation coefficients between vegetation index and chlorophyll content
Optimized spectral index | Band combination | Correlation coefficient | Mean |
---|
RSI | 942 945, 941 947,950 956, 1028 1051,928 1051 | 0.48, 0.43,0.42, 0.39,0.39 | 0.422 | DSI | 716 719, 693 936,565 738, 610 740,636 741 | 0.77, 0.76,0.75, 0.74,0.73 | 0.75 | NDSI | 941 952, 941 947,956 950, 928 1051,1028 1051 | 0.46, 0.43,0.42, 0.39,0.38 | 0.418 |
|
Table 4. Correlation between chlorophyll contents and optimal spectral indices
Model | Item | Calibration | Validation |
---|
R2 | RRMSE | RRE | R2 | RRMSE | RRE |
---|
Algorithm | R | 0.41 | 2.88 | 1.26 | 0.29 | 1.53 | 0.43 | R′ | 0.72 | 1.99 | 0.72 | 0.84 | 0.72 | 0.14 | Rcr | 0.39 | 2.91 | 1.1 | 0.83 | 0.69 | 0.16 | VI | R4 | 0.51 | 2.61 | 1.1 | 0.64 | 1.11 | 0.31 | R′4 | 0.49 | 2.74 | 1.18 | 0.43 | 1.37 | 0.39 | Rcr4 | 0.38 | 2.96 | 1.36 | 0.50 | 1.29 | 0.35 | OSI | DDSI | 0.49 | 3.02 | 1.34 | 0.23 | 1.6 | 0.52 | NNDSI | 0.45 | 2.82 | 1.09 | 0.58 | 1.19 | 0.25 | RRSI | 0.53 | 2.62 | 0.99 | 0.58 | 1.18 | 0.24 |
|
Table 5. Comparison of modeling results of SVM regression model RBF kernel type