Evaluation of the Reliability of the CCM-300 Chlorophyll Content Meter in Measuring Chlorophyll Content for Various Plant Functional Types

Van Beek, Joelie M.; Zheng, Ting; Wang, Zhihui; Kovach, Kyle R.; Townsend, Philip A.

doi:10.3390/s24154784

Open AccessArticle

Evaluation of the Reliability of the CCM-300 Chlorophyll Content Meter in Measuring Chlorophyll Content for Various Plant Functional Types

by

Joelie M. Van Beek

¹

,

Ting Zheng

^1,*,

Zhihui Wang

^1,2,

Kyle R. Kovach

¹

and

Philip A. Townsend

¹

Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA

²

Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing and Geographical Information System, Guangdong Open Laboratory of Geospatial Information Technology and Application, Guangzhou Institute of Geography, Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510070, China

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Sensors 2024, 24(15), 4784; https://doi.org/10.3390/s24154784

Submission received: 18 June 2024 / Revised: 13 July 2024 / Accepted: 16 July 2024 / Published: 23 July 2024

(This article belongs to the Section Smart Agriculture)

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

Chlorophyll fluorescence is a well-established method to estimate chlorophyll content in leaves. A popular fluorescence-based meter, the Opti-Sciences CCM-300 Chlorophyll Content Meter (CCM-300), utilizes the fluorescence ratio F735/F700 and equations derived from experiments using broadleaf species to provide a direct, rapid estimate of chlorophyll content used for many applications. We sought to quantify the performance of the CCM-300 relative to more intensive methods, both across plant functional types and years of use. We linked CCM-300 measurements of broadleaf, conifer, and graminoid samples in 2018 and 2019 to high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and/or spectrophotometric (Spec) analysis of the same leaves. We observed a significant difference between the CCM-300 and HPLC/Spec, but not between HPLC and Spec. In comparison to HPLC, the CCM-300 performed better for broadleaves (r = 0.55, RMSE = 154.76) than conifers (r = 0.52, RMSE = 171.16) and graminoids (r = 0.32, RMSE = 127.12). We observed a slight deterioration in meter performance between years, potentially due to meter calibration. Our results show that the CCM-300 is reliable to demonstrate coarse variations in chlorophyll but may be limited for cross-plant functional type studies and comparisons across years.

Keywords: chlorophyll fluorescence; chlorophyll content meter; plant functional type; CCM-300

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Van Beek, J.M.; Zheng, T.; Wang, Z.; Kovach, K.R.; Townsend, P.A. Evaluation of the Reliability of the CCM-300 Chlorophyll Content Meter in Measuring Chlorophyll Content for Various Plant Functional Types. Sensors 2024, 24, 4784. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24154784

AMA Style

Van Beek JM, Zheng T, Wang Z, Kovach KR, Townsend PA. Evaluation of the Reliability of the CCM-300 Chlorophyll Content Meter in Measuring Chlorophyll Content for Various Plant Functional Types. Sensors. 2024; 24(15):4784. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24154784

Chicago/Turabian Style

Van Beek, Joelie M., Ting Zheng, Zhihui Wang, Kyle R. Kovach, and Philip A. Townsend. 2024. "Evaluation of the Reliability of the CCM-300 Chlorophyll Content Meter in Measuring Chlorophyll Content for Various Plant Functional Types" Sensors 24, no. 15: 4784. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24154784

APA Style

Van Beek, J. M., Zheng, T., Wang, Z., Kovach, K. R., & Townsend, P. A. (2024). Evaluation of the Reliability of the CCM-300 Chlorophyll Content Meter in Measuring Chlorophyll Content for Various Plant Functional Types. Sensors, 24(15), 4784. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24154784

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu

Evaluation of the Reliability of the CCM-300 Chlorophyll Content Meter in Measuring Chlorophyll Content for Various Plant Functional Types

Abstract

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI