Modeling Approaches for Digital Plant Phenotyping Under Dynamic Conditions of Natural, Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Approaches to the Formation of Adequate Digital Twins of Plants
2.2. The Algorithm of Digital Plant Phenotyping
2.3. Software and Hardware Complex for Conducting Laboratory Experiments, Data Collection, and Forming Training and Test Samples
- Frame—a hollow parallelepiped welded from sheet stainless steel, with a ceiling made of organic glass and a sealed hatch, having a total volume of 3 m3;
- Removable panels—light-blocking panels;
- Rotating platform—located inside the enclosure, designed to hold container 4 with the plant sample under analysis;
- Container—holds the analyzed plant sample;
- Photographic and video cameras (at least two)—mounted on a movable platform (6), ensuring synchronized video capture of the plant;
- Movable platform—designed for vertical movement via a screw drive, in a plane parallel to the axis of rotation of the rotating platform (3);
- Multispectral light sources—installed on the photographic and video cameras (5), providing radiation of adjustable spectrum to illuminate the plant;
- Drives—installed inside the enclosure to control the positions of platforms (3) and (6).
2.4. Studied Ecosystems
- Radish (Raphanus sativus L.) variety “Virovsky White”—an annual plant from the cruciferous family, which is moisture-loving and light-loving.
- Carrot (Daucus carota L.) variety “Vitamin 6”—a biennial plant from the umbrella family with finely dissected leaves, classified as a mid-season variety.
- Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) variety “Egyptian”—a biennial plant from the amaranth family.
- Kohlrabi (Brassica caulorapa L.)—a biennial plant from the cruciferous family.
- 5.
- Rye (Secale cereale L.)—an annual cereal plant from the grass family, an important agricultural crop.
- 6.
- Pea (Pisum sativum L.)—an annual leguminous plant, an important agricultural crop.
- 7.
- Broadleaf Cress (Barbarea vulgaris L.)—a biennial plant from the cabbage family, used as a forage plant and in homeopathy.
- 8.
- Peach-leaved Bellflower (Campanula persicifolia L.)—a perennial herbaceous plant from the bellflower family, used as a forage plant and in homeopathy.
- 9.
- Soybean (Glycine max L.)—an annual leguminous plant belonging to the legume family, an important agricultural crop widely used as a source of protein and oil.
- 10.
- Fiddle Leaf (Ficus lyrata)—a popular houseplant from the mulberry family, an evergreen tree or shrub.
2.5. The Algorithm of Using Digital Twins for Agroecological Zoning of Territories
- −
- For a specific studied area, evaluate the yield of all agricultural crops used by the producer for cultivation, based on existing or forecasted values of CO2 concentrations, soil mineral composition, and meteorological parameters. Conduct a comparative analysis to identify the crops with the highest yield (algorithm shown in Figure 5a).
- −
- For a specific crop required for cultivation, assess its yield across different territories belonging to various farms or agricultural holdings, based on existing or forecasted values of CO2 concentrations, soil mineral composition, and meteorological parameters. Identify the territories with the highest yield indicators for this crop (algorithm shown in Figure 5b).

3. Results
3.1. Results of Experimental Studies on the Impact of Carbon Dioxide Dynamics on Plant Growth and Development
3.1.1. Effects of Carbon Dioxide on Radish Growth and Development
3.1.2. Effects of Carbon Dioxide on Cabbage Growth and Development
3.1.3. Effects of Carbon Dioxide on Carrots Growth and Development
3.1.4. Effects of Carbon Dioxide on Beetroot Growth and Development
3.2. Modeling Metrics and Their Analysis
- −
- Analysis of the influence of the parameter thresh3D on the quality of the generated 3D models;
- −
- Analysis of the influence of the parameter vbase_size on the quality of the generated 3D models;
- −
- Analysis of the influence of the parameter thresh3D on the time required to create a 3D model;
- −
- Analysis of the influence of the parameter vbase_size on the time required to create a 3D model.
3.2.1. Analysis of the Influence of the Parameter thresh3D on the Quality of the Generated 3D Models
- −
- As the thresh3D parameter increases, the precision metric also increases, indicating that the constructed model encompasses more voxels belonging to the original model.
- −
- As the thresh3D parameter increases, the recall metric decreases, indicating that the constructed model includes more voxels not belonging to the original model.
- −
- As the thresh3D parameter increases, the F1 score metric initially rises, then declines. The optimal thresh3D value for plants modeled under current conditions is the maximum median value on the box plot for the F1 score metric. This corresponds to thresh3D = 3.
3.2.2. Analysis of the Influence of the vbase_size Parameter on the Quality of the Generated 3D Models
- −
- When vbase_size ≥ 16, the resulting plant model cannot be used for further calculations due to the extremely low construction accuracy.
- −
- When 2 < vbase_size < 16, the accuracy of the resulting models increases significantly;
- −
- vbase_size ≤ 2, the graph of model accuracy reaches a plateau;
- −
- The optimal vbase_size is equal to 4 or 2. When selecting vbase_size = 1, the accuracy of the resulting model almost does not increase, but the time to create the model is much longer, which will be shown below.
3.2.3. Investigation of the Effect of the Parameter thresh3D on the Creation Time of a 3D Model of a Plant
3.2.4. Investigation of the Influence of the Parameter vbase_size at the Time of Creating the 3D Model of the Plant
3.3. Phenotyping Metrics
Metrics of Plant Segmentation Quality by Species
4. Discussion
4.1. Results of Experiments with Crop Cultivation
4.2. Results of Experiments with Plant Models
5. Conclusions
- −
- To identify the crop with the highest yield for a specific agricultural area;
- −
- To determine the territory with parameters that ensure the highest yield for a specific desired crop.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| GHGs | Greenhouse gases |
References
- Akilan, T.; Baalamurugan, K.M. Automated weather forecasting and field monitoring using GRU-CNN model along with IoT to support precision agriculture. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 249, 123468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharipova, L.; Khusenov, M. Creation of environmental pollution monitoring systems using digital educational technologies. AIP Conf. Proc. 2025, 3268, 70013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Logachev, M.; Simonov, V. Information system as used to monitor sowing, care and harvesting on agricultural lands. BIO Web Conf.–EDP Sci. 2024, 83, 03002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolomiiets, S.; Khrutba, V.; Kobzysta, O.; Kolomiiets, A.; Shevchenko, V. Management of an Automated Air Quality Monitoring System to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference Intelligent Transport Systems: Ecology, Safety, Quality, Comfort, Kyiv, Ukraine, 26–27 November 2024; pp. 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satpathy, I.; Nayak, A.; Jain, V. The green city: Sustainable and smart urban living through artificial intelligence. In Utilizing Technology to Manage Territories; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2025; Volume 1, pp. 273–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivashchuk, O.A.; Fedorov, V.I.; Goncharov, D.V. Approaches to the development of an automated control system for the adaptation of agricultural areas under the changing greenhouse effect. Math. Stat. Eng. Appl. 2022, 71, 948–956. [Google Scholar]
- Ivashchuk, O.A.; Goncharov, D.V.; Fedorov, V.I. Digital Technologies for Assessing and Predicting the Impact of the Spatiotemporal Distribution of Greenhouse Gases on the Photosynthetic Activity of Crops. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Russian Smart Industry Conference (SmartIndustryCon), Sochi, Russia, 25–29 March 2024; pp. 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konstantinov, I.S.; Ivaschuk, O.A. Approaches to creating environment safety automation control system of the industrial complex. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 7th International Conference on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems (IDAACS), Berlin, Germany, 12–14 September 2013; pp. 828–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivashchuk, O.A.; Konstantinov, I.S.; Udovenko, I.V. Smart control system of human resources potential of the region. In Smart Education and Smart e-Learning; Springer International Publishing: Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 481–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goncharov, D.V.; Ivashchuk, O.A.; Kaliuzhnaya, E.V. Development of a Mobile Robotic Complex for Automated Monitoring and Harvesting of Agricultural Crops. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Russian Automation Conference (RusAutoCon), Sochi, Russia, 8–14 September 2024; pp. 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goncharov, D.V.; Ivashchuk, O.A.; Reznikov, N.G. Method for modeling and visualization of agricultural crops growth based on augmented reality technology in terms of the greenhouse effect dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Russian Smart Industry Conference (SmartIndustryCon), Sochi, Russia, 27–31 March 2023; pp. 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goncharov, D.V.; Fedorov, V.I.; Ivashchuk, O.O. Methods, Models and Hardware-Software Complex of Distributed Monitoring Based on Iot and Blockchain Technology. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Russian Smart Industry Conference (SmartIndustryCon), Sochi, Russia, 25–29 March 2024; pp. 196–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, C.; Liu, X.; He, X. A global meta-analysis of crop yield and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions under nitrogen fertilizer application. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 831, 154982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Z.; Geng, L. Carbon emissions calculation from municipal solid waste and the influencing factors analysis in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 104, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirschmann, K.; Zallinger, M.; Fellendorf, M.; Hausberger, S. A new method to calculate emissions with simulated traffic conditions. In Proceedings of the 13th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Funchal, Portugal, 19–22 September 2010; pp. 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, S.; Beecher, N.; Carpenter, A. Calculator tool for determining greenhouse gas emissions for biosolids processing and end use. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 24, 9509–9515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iglesias-Suarez, F.; Gentine, P.; Solino-Fernandez, B.; Beucler, T.; Pritchard, M.; Runge, J.; Eyring, V. Causally-informed deep learning to improve climate models and projections. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2024, 129, e2023JD039202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazić, I.; Djurdjević, V.; Tošić, I.; Tošić, M. Impact of soil texture in coupled regional climate model on land-atmosphere interactions. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2025, 156, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eyring, V.; Collins, W.D.; Gentine, P.; Barnes, E.A.; Barreiro, M.; Beucler, T.; Zanna, L. Pushing the frontiers in climate modelling and analysis with machine learning. Nat. Clim. Change 2024, 14, 916–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mott, K.A. Sensing of atmospheric CO2 by plants. Plant Cell Environ. 1990, 13, 731–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffin, K.L.; Seemann, J.R. Plants, CO2 and photosynthesis in the 21st century. Chem. Biol. 1996, 3, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Timlin, D.; Paff, K.; Han, E. The role of crop simulation modeling in assessing potential climate change impacts. Agrosys. Geosci. Environ. 2024, 7, e20453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yanagi, M. Climate change impacts on wheat production: Reviewing challenges and adaptation strategies. Adv. Resour. Res. 2024, 4, 89–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soltani, A.; Hoogenboom, G. Assessing crop management options with crop simulation models based on generated weather data. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ. 2007, 3, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, T.; Zhang, X.; Khanal, S.; Wilson, R.; Leng, G.; Toman, E.M.; Zhao, K. Climate change impacts on crop yields: A review of empirical findings, statistical crop models, and machine learning methods. Environ. Model. Softw. 2024, 179, 106119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petito, M.; Cantalamessa, S.; Pagnani, G.; Pisante, M. Modelling and mapping Soil Organic Carbon in annual cropland under different farm management systems in the Apulia region of Southern Italy. Soil Tillage Res. 2024, 235, 105916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, B.; Karimi, M.S.; Mohammed, K.S.; Shahzadi, I.; Dai, J. Nexus between climate change, agricultural output, fertilizer use, agriculture soil emissions: Novel implications in the context of environmental management. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 450, 141801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, M.; Chen, Y.; Li, Z.; Duan, W.; Zhu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, Y. Optimisation model for sustainable agricultural development based on water-energy-food nexus and CO2 emissions: A case study in Tarim river basin. Energy Convers. Manag. 2024, 303, 118174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monson, R.K.; Li, S.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Fan, Y.; Hodge, J.G.; Knapp, A.K.; Way, D.A. C4 photosynthesis, trait spectra, and the fast-efficient phenotype. New Phytol. 2025, 246, 879–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazari, M.; Kordrostami, M.; Ghasemi-Soloklui, A.A.; Eaton-Rye, J.J.; Pashkovskiy, P.; Kuznetsov, V.; Allakhverdiev, S.I. Enhancing photosynthesis and plant productivity through genetic modification. Cells 2024, 16, 1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kubien, D.S.; Von Caemmerer, S.; Furbank, R.T.; Sage, R.F. C4 photosynthesis at low temperature. A study using transgenic plants with reduced amounts of Rubisco. Plant Physiol. 2003, 3, 1577–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Knight, D.; Painter, J.; Potter, M. Automatic Plant Leaf Classification for a Mobile Field Guide. Rapport Technique. Université de Stanford. 2010. Available online: https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:bj600br8916/Knight_Painter_Potter_PlantLeafClassification.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2025).
- Gélard, W.; Herbulot, A.; Devy, M.; Casadebaig, P. 3D leaf tracking for plant growth monitoring. In Proceedings of the 2018 25th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, ICIP, Athens, Greece, 7–10 October 2018; IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018. Available online: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8451553 (accessed on 20 October 2025).
- Zhang, S.; Huang, W.; Huang, Y.A. Plant Species Recognition Methods using Leaf Image: Overview. Neurocomputing 2020, 408, 246–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Tsai, P.S.; Cryer, J.E.; Shah, M. Shape-from-shading: A survey. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1999, 21, 690–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, S.; Kanade, T. Shape-from-silhouette across time part i: Theory and algorithms. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2005, 62, 221–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chéné, Y.; Rousseau, D.; Lucidarme, P.; Bertheloot, J.; Caffier, V.; Morel, P.; Chapeau-Blondeau, F. On the use of depth camera for 3D phenotyping of entire plants. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2012, 82, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhury, A.; Ward, C.; Talasaz, A.; Ivanov, A.G.; Brophy, M.; Grodzinski, B.; Barron, J.L. Machine vision system for 3D plant phenotyping. ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 2018, 16, 2009–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulus, S.; Behmann, J.; Mahlein, A.K.; Plümer, L.; Kuhlmann, H. Low-cost 3D systems: Suitable tools for plant phenotyping. Sensors 2014, 14, 3001–3018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pound, M.P.; French, A.P.; Murchie, E.H.; Pridmore, T.P. Automated recovery of three-dimensional models of plant shoots from multiple color images. Plant Physiol. 2014, 166, 1688–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paschalis, A.; Katul, G.G.; Fatichi, S.; Palmroth, S.; Way, D. On the variability of the ecosystem response to elevated atmospheric CO2 across spatial and temporal scales at the Duke Forest FACE experiment. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2017, 232, 367–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gangana Gowdra, V.M.; Lalitha, B.S.; Halli, H.M.; Senthamil, E.; Negi, P.; Jayadeva, H.M.; Reddy, K.S. Root growth, yield and stress tolerance of soybean to transient waterlogging under different climatic regimes. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 6968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yue, Z.; Zhang, G.; Wang, J.; Wang, J.; Luo, S.; Zhang, B.; Liu, Z. Comparative study of the quality indices, antioxidant substances, and mineral elements in different forms of cabbage. BMC Plant Biol. 2024, 24, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iwaszenko, S.; Smolinski, A.; Grzanka, M.; Skowronek, T. Airborne particulate matter measurement and prediction with machine learning techniques. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 18999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fomicheva, D.V.; Zhidkin, A.P.; Komissarov, M.A. Multiscale estimates of soil erodibility variation under conditions of high soil cover heterogeneity in the northern forest-steppe of the Central Russian Upland. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2024, 57, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]



















| Approach | Precision | Recall | F1 | FP | TP | FN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CV | 0.497 | 0.767 | 0.603 | 4,773,417 | 4,724,341 | 1,436,863 |
| NN | 0.951 | 0.917 | 0.933 | 248,585 | 4,835,602 | 440,389 |
| An Object | Age, Day | Raw Mass 0.015–0.03% | Raw Mass 0.07–0.09% | Dry Mass 0.015–0.03% | Dry Mass 0.07–0.09% | S2 0.015–0.03% | S2 0.07–0.09% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaves | 13 | 5.4 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.07 | 0.04 |
| Root vegetable | 13 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Roots | 13 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.08 | 0.05 |
| The whole plant | 13 | 6.4 | 4.7 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.07 | 0.04 |
| Leaves | 26 | 13.7 | 13.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.08 | 0.04 |
| Root vegetable | 26 | 10.6 | 11.7 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.07 | 0.06 |
| Roots | 26 | 1 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.06 | 0.04 |
| The whole plant | 26 | 25.5 | 26.8 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| An Object | Age, Day | N 0.015–0.03% | N 0.07–0.09% | P 0.015–0.03% | P 0.07–0.09% | S 0.015–0.03% | S 0.07–0.09% | K 0.015–0.03% | K 0.07–0.09% | Ca 0.015–0.03% | Ca 0.07–0.09% | Mg 0.015–0.03% | Mg 0.07–0.09% | S2 0.015–0.03% | S2 0.07–0.09% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roots | 13 | 3.17 | 3.5 | 1.13 | 1.01 | 0.74 | 0.73 | 1.15 | 0.78 | 1.75 | 1.52 | 0.14 | 0.1 | 0.06 | 0.05 |
| Root vegetable | 13 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Leaves | 13 | 3.37 | 3.97 | 0.92 | 0.42 | 0.52 | 0.5 | 7 | 7.94 | 3.25 | 2.95 | 0.44 | 0.29 | 0.08 | 0.06 |
| Roots | 26 | 3.43 | 3.35 | 3.45 | 2.47 | 0.51 | 0.45 | 1.7 | 0.74 | 5.6 | 4.26 | 0.21 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.06 |
| Root vegetable | 26 | 1.95 | 3.15 | 0.81 | 0.47 | 0.63 | 0.57 | 5.4 | 4.8 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.04 |
| Leaves | 26 | 2.94 | 4.63 | 0.81 | 0.43 | 0.9 | 0.92 | 4.5 | 5.95 | 3.2 | 2.12 | 0.39 | 0.29 | 0.09 | 0.07 |
| An Object | Age, Day | Raw Mass 0.015–0.03% | Raw Mass 0.07–0.09% | Dry Mass 0.015–0.03% | Dry Mass 0.07–0.09% | S2 0.015–0.03% | S2 0.07–0.09% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaves | 52 | 90 | 42 | 9,6 | 5.2 | 0.07 | 0.04 |
| Root vegetable | 52 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Roots | 52 | 10.1 | 10.2 | 2 | 0.8 | 0.06 | 0.04 |
| The whole plant | 52 | 10.1 | 53.2 | 11.6 | 6 | 0.07 | 0.04 |
| Leaves | 78 | 13.7 | 13.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.08 | 0.05 |
| Root vegetable | 78 | 10.6 | 11.7 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
| Roots | 78 | 1 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
| The whole plant | 78 | 25.5 | 26.8 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
| An Object | Age, Day | N 0.015–0.03% | N 0.07–0.09% | P 0.015–0.03% | P 0.07–0.09% | S 0.015–0.03% | S 0.07–0.09% | K 0.015–0.03% | K 0.07–0.09% | Ca 0.015–0.03% | Ca 0.07–0.09% | Mg 0.015–0.03% | Mg 0.07–0.09% | S2 0.015–0.03% | S2 0.07–0.09% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roots | 26 | 3.28 | 3.01 | 1.77 | 2.33 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 3.94 | 4.95 | 5.78 | 8.10 | 0.42 | 0.72 | 0.04 | 0.03 |
| Steblepload | 26 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Leaves | 26 | 3.44 | 4.22 | 0.55 | 0.7 | 0.65 | 1.04 | 5 | 6.4 | 2.57 | 3.46 | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
| Roots | 52 | 2.72 | 2.66 | 2.26 | 3.55 | 0.66 | 0.44 | 1.7 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 9 | 0.19 | 0.28 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| Steblepload | 52 | 2.84 | 4.13 | 0.68 | 0.78 | 0.56 | 0.75 | 4.67 | 3 | 0.63 | 0.4 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
| Leaves | 52 | 1.92 | 3 | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.79 | 0.92 | 5.33 | 5.3 | 4.77 | 3.6 | 0.49 | 0.42 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
| Roots | 78 | 2.38 | 2.6 | 2.77 | 3.8 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 2.47 | 3 | 6.2 | 9.65 | 0.24 | 0.53 | 0.06 | 0.04 |
| Steblepload | 78 | 2.83 | 3.64 | 0.65 | 0.66 | 0.56 | 0.7 | 4 | 4.2 | 0.63 | 0.37 | 0.23 | 0.18 | 0.08 | 0.05 |
| Leaves | 78 | 1.25 | 2.81 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 0.84 | 0.87 | 4.33 | 4.5 | 5.17 | 6.6 | 0.49 | 0.5 | 0.08 | 0.06 |
| An Object | Age, Day | Raw Mass 0.015–0.03% | Raw Mass 0.07–0.09% | Dry Mass 0.015–0.03% | Dry Mass 0.07–0.09% | S2 0.015–0.03% | S2 0.07–0.09% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaves | 26 | 5.4 | 11.4 | 0.6 | 1.9 | 0.08 | 0.03 |
| Root vegetable | 26 | 0.7 | 3.7 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.08 | 0.04 |
| Roots | 26 | 4.1 | 6.6 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
| The whole plant | 26 | 10.2 | 21.7 | 1 | 2.8 | 0.07 | 0.04 |
| Leaves | 52 | 27 | 41.1 | 6.1 | 8.9 | 0.08 | 0.05 |
| Root vegetable | 52 | 57 | 109.2 | 7.1 | 15.3 | 0.06 | 0.04 |
| Roots | 52 | 10.4 | 12.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.08 | 0.03 |
| The whole plant | 52 | 94.4 | 162.8 | 13.9 | 25.1 | 0.07 | 0.03 |
| Leaves | 78 | 40.1 | 47.6 | 8.7 | 12.1 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
| Root vegetable | 78 | 101.5 | 140.9 | 18.1 | 20.8 | 0.06 | 0.04 |
| Roots | 78 | 19.8 | 14.3 | 0.9 | 1 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
| The whole plant | 78 | 161.4 | 202.8 | 27.7 | 33.9 | 0.07 | 0.03 |
| An Object | Age, Day | N 0.015–0.03% | N 0.07–0.09% | P 0.015–0.03% | P 0.07–0.09% | S 0.015–0.03% | S 0.07–0.09% | K 0.015–0.03% | K 0.07–0.09% | Ca 0.015–0.03% | Ca 0.07–0.09% | Mg 0.015–0.03% | Mg 0.07–0.09% | S2 0.015–0.03% | S2 0.07–0.09% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roots | 26 | 2.77 | 2.51 | 0.95 | 0.73 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 2.33 | 0.83 | 2.5 | 1.59 | 1.5 | 1.25 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
| Steblepload | 26 | - | - | 0.17 | 0.41 | 0.2 | 0.19 | 3.83 | 2.8 | 0.52 | 0.36 | 0.35 | 0.22 | 0.03 | 0.04 |
| Leaves | 26 | 3.7 | 2.5 | 0.66 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.37 | 6.33 | 1.65 | 1.77 | 1.49 | 0.39 | 0.4 | 0.07 | 0.04 |
| Roots | 52 | 1.9 | 2.97 | 2.54 | 1.17 | 0.35 | 0.33 | 2.25 | 1.15 | 2.05 | 2.56 | 1.4 | 1.73 | 0.06 | 0.05 |
| Steblepload | 52 | 1.17 | 1.88 | 0.83 | 0.64 | 0 | 0.23 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 0.73 | 0.29 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
| Leaves | 52 | 1.53 | 2.09 | 0.72 | 0.64 | 0.31 | 0.36 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 3.23 | 3.36 | 0.35 | 0.56 | 0.04 | 0.05 |
| Roots | 78 | 2.08 | 3.56 | 1.34 | 1.11 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 2 | 2.05 | 2.4 | 1.85 | 0.04 | 0.06 |
| Steblepload | 78 | 1.13 | 1.77 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.36 | 0.26 | 2.4 | 3.85 | 0.75 | 2 | 0.27 | 0.39 | 0.03 | 0.04 |
| Leaves | 78 | 1.45 | 2.01 | 0.77 | 0.67 | 0.3 | 0.42 | 2.95 | 7.28 | 4.58 | 7.05 | 0.46 | 0.56 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
| An Object | Age, Day | Raw Mass 0.015–0.03% | Raw Mass 0.07–0.09% | Dry Mass 0.015–0.03% | Dry Mass 0.07–0.09% | S2 0.015–0.03% | S2 0.07–0.09% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaves | 26 | 44.5 | 67.4 | 3.4 | 6.9 | 0.07 | 0.04 |
| Root vegetable | 26 | 12.9 | 54.9 | 1.9 | 7.1 | 0.07 | 0.03 |
| Roots | 26 | 4.8 | 10.9 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.09 | 0.05 |
| The whole plant | 26 | 62.2 | 133.2 | 4.6 | 14.9 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
| Leaves | 52 | 53.2 | 70.8 | 6.9 | 11.2 | 0.08 | 0.03 |
| Root vegetable | 52 | 84.6 | 154 | 8.3 | 13.9 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| Roots | 52 | 5.3 | 12 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 0.08 | 0.03 |
| The whole plant | 52 | 143 | 236.8 | 15.7 | 26.5 | 0.07 | 0.03 |
| Leaves | 78 | 63.5 | 83.3 | 12.8 | 18.7 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| Root vegetable | 78 | 173.9 | 297 | 17.8 | 28.7 | 0.06 | 0.04 |
| Roots | 78 | 5.1 | 15.8 | 0.5 | 2.1 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| The whole plant | 78 | 242.5 | 397.1 | 31.1 | 49.5 | 0.08 | 0.04 |
| An Object | Age, Day | N 0.015–0.03% | N 0.07–0.09% | P 0.015–0.03% | P 0.07–0.09% | S 0.015–0.03% | S 0.07–0.09% | K 0.015–0.03% | K 0.07–0.09% | Ca 0.015–0.03% | Ca 0.07–0.09% | Mg 0.015–0.03% | Mg 0.07–0.09% | S2 0.015–0.03% | S2 0.07–0.09% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roots | 26 | 3.06 | 3.05 | 0.64 | 0.87 | 0.28 | 0.32 | 3.33 | 2.22 | 1.77 | 1.47 | 0.65 | 0.74 | 0.06 | 0.03 |
| Steblepload | 26 | 2.04 | 2 | 0.71 | 0.37 | 0.32 | 0.16 | 4 | 2.2 | 0.53 | 0.23 | 0.57 | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.04 |
| Leaves | 26 | 4.1 | 3.15 | 0.61 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.29 | 6.33 | 4.6 | 2.23 | 2.36 | 1.23 | 1.5 | 0.07 | 0.03 |
| Roots | 52 | 2.6 | 3.56 | 1.72 | 2.46 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 2.67 | 2.98 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 0.66 | 0.54 | 0.06 | 0.05 |
| Steblepload | 52 | 1.3 | 3.27 | 0.58 | 0.64 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 3.7 | 3.35 | 0.23 | 0.3 | 0.48 | 0.54 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
| Leaves | 52 | 2.25 | 3.18 | 0.62 | 0.52 | 0.29 | 0.49 | 7 | 7.18 | 3 | 2.12 | 2 | 1.02 | 0.07 | 0.03 |
| Roots | 78 | 2.79 | 3.22 | 1.66 | 3.09 | 0.27 | 0.33 | 2.33 | 2 | 3.1 | 3.8 | 0.69 | 0.67 | 0.04 | 0.06 |
| Steblepload | 78 | 2.24 | 2.9 | 0.55 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.2 | 3.67 | 2.55 | 0.29 | 0.24 | 0.54 | 0.41 | 0.03 | 0.04 |
| Leaves | 78 | 2.12 | 3.41 | 0.68 | 0.57 | 0.4 | 0.33 | 5.33 | 6 | 2.53 | 3.3 | 1.8 | 2.43 | 0.09 | 0.03 |
| T/th | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 0.61 | 0.62 | 0.63 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 0.83 | 0.78 | 0.93 | 0.88 | 1.79 | 1.01 |
| T2 | 2.32 | 1.40 | 1.46 | 1.86 | 1.63 | 1.68 | 1.84 | 1.88 | 1.92 | 2.19 | 2.72 |
| T3 | 2.82 | 2.99 | 3.07 | 5.52 | 3.27 | 3.55 | 3.74 | 3.85 | 4.34 | 4.37 | 5.11 |
| T4 | 4.90 | 5.47 | 5.81 | 6.94 | 7.03 | 7.28 | 7.45 | 7.97 | 9.79 | 9.30 | 9.69 |
| T5 | 8.84 | 9.53 | 9.90 | 10.40 | 10.40 | 11.15 | 11.77 | 14.95 | 14.06 | 14.58 | 16.27 |
| T6 | 18.71 | 19.19 | 19.68 | 22.18 | 22.76 | 26.17 | 27.21 | 28.35 | 30.77 | 33.19 | 34.90 |
| T7 | 22.11 | 23.50 | 25.60 | 29.37 | 33.50 | 37.73 | 36.39 | 41.20 | 44.01 | 50.52 | 52.57 |
| T8 | 32.29 | 32.62 | 33.33 | 37.22 | 44.04 | 47.80 | 50.91 | 54.56 | 58.10 | 67.41 | 71.00 |
| T9 | 36.63 | 38.54 | 41.97 | 45.97 | 51.03 | 56.17 | 61.52 | 71.45 | 74.31 | 83.75 | 87.53 |
| T10 | 35.16 | 38.43 | 42.19 | 49.55 | 54.25 | 58.69 | 62.92 | 70.62 | 78.56 | 85.81 | 90.50 |
| T11 | 35.16 | 37.17 | 43.19 | 49.76 | 53.96 | 57.96 | 64.41 | 70.55 | 77.29 | 85.54 | 92.29 |
| T12 | 35.27 | 39.43 | 46.41 | 50.74 | 53.13 | 60.27 | 62.35 | 67.85 | 77.67 | 82.51 | 92.03 |
| T/vox_size | 128 | 64 | 32 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 0.24 | 0.276 | 0.336 | 0.276 | 0.304 | 0.378 | 0.723 | 2.591 |
| T2 | 0.324 | 0.318 | 0.351 | 0.336 | 0.499 | 0.877 | 1.753 | 7.547 |
| T3 | 0.365 | 0.344 | 0.491 | 0.448 | 0.545 | 0.885 | 3.302 | 18.514 |
| T4 | 0.427 | 0.471 | 0.518 | 0.459 | 1.231 | 1.555 | 6.529 | 37.491 |
| T5 | 0.53 | 0.669 | 0.6681 | 0.658 | 1.361 | 2.889 | 10.184 | 58.789 |
| T6 | 0.545 | 0.901 | 0.713 | 0.977 | 1.509 | 6.503 | 21.344 | 125.787 |
| T7 | 0.629 | 0.713 | 0.722 | 1.074 | 1.671 | 7.866 | 28.756 | 166.703 |
| T8 | 0.639 | 0.734 | 0.769 | 1.238 | 2.385 | 7.97 | 36.311 | 219.608 |
| T9 | 0.743 | 0.751 | 0.825 | 1.336 | 2.914 | 9.476 | 44.453 | 277.996 |
| T10 | 0.837 | 0.83 | 0.894 | 1.483 | 3.24 | 9.536 | 46.047 | 302.282 |
| T11 | 0.925 | 0.981 | 1.059 | 1.658 | 3.243 | 9.759 | 46.732 | 317.775 |
| T12 | 1.498 | 1.626 | 1.637 | 2.052 | 4.971 | 11.333 | 48.462 | 319.887 |
| ∑T1–T12 | 7.702 | 8.414 | 8.986 | 11.995 | 23.873 | 69.027 | 294.596 | 1854.969 |
| Plant | MAE | MSE | MAPE | MPE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radish | 0.163 | 0.653 | 0.070 | 0.063 |
| Carrot | 0.767 | 1.531 | 0.084 | 0.032 |
| Cabbage | 0.834 | 1.892 | 0.099 | 0.077 |
| Beet | 0.436 | 0.671 | 0.093 | 0.021 |
| Ficus lyrata | 0.785 | 1.785 | 0.077 | 0.017 |
| Soy | 0.167 | 0.167 | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Broadleaf Cress | 0.333 | 0.333 | 0.055 | 0.055 |
| Rye | 0.417 | 0.583 | 0.089 | 0.035 |
| Pea | 0.078 | 0.209 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| The peach-leaved bell | 0.056 | 0.109 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Average | 0.3902 | 0.7615 | 0.1385 | 0.003 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yagaliyeva, B.; Ivashchuk, O.; Goncharov, D. Modeling Approaches for Digital Plant Phenotyping Under Dynamic Conditions of Natural, Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors. Algorithms 2025, 18, 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/a18110720
Yagaliyeva B, Ivashchuk O, Goncharov D. Modeling Approaches for Digital Plant Phenotyping Under Dynamic Conditions of Natural, Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors. Algorithms. 2025; 18(11):720. https://doi.org/10.3390/a18110720
Chicago/Turabian StyleYagaliyeva, Bagdat, Olga Ivashchuk, and Dmitry Goncharov. 2025. "Modeling Approaches for Digital Plant Phenotyping Under Dynamic Conditions of Natural, Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors" Algorithms 18, no. 11: 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/a18110720
APA StyleYagaliyeva, B., Ivashchuk, O., & Goncharov, D. (2025). Modeling Approaches for Digital Plant Phenotyping Under Dynamic Conditions of Natural, Climatic and Anthropogenic Factors. Algorithms, 18(11), 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/a18110720

