Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Gamma Stirling Engine Performance through Genetic Algorithm Technique
Previous Article in Journal
Preface: The 4th International Conference on Advances in Environmental Engineering
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Transmittance Properties of Healthy and Infected Coffee Robusta Leaves with Coffee Leaf Miner (CLM) Pests †

1
Environment and RemoTe Sensing Research (EARTH) Laboratory, Department of Physics, College of Science, De La Salle University, Manila 0922, Philippines
2
Division of Physical Sciences and Mathematics, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas, Miagao 5023, Philippines
3
Department of Physics, College of Arts and Sciences, Visayas State University, Baybay City 6521, Philippines
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at the 4th International Electronic Conference on Applied Sciences, 27 October–10 November 2023; Available online: https://asec2023.sciforum.net/.
Eng. Proc. 2023, 56(1), 9; https://doi.org/10.3390/ASEC2023-15235
Published: 26 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Proceedings of The 4th International Electronic Conference on Applied Sciences)

Abstract

:
Coffee Robusta (Coffea canephora) increased its total production by 73.5% during the first quarter of 2023. In this study, twenty (20) samples each of healthy and infected coffee leaves were measured for their transmittance properties in the UV-Vis and NIR regions. Coffee Leaf Miner (CLM)-infected leaves were identified based on translucent patches on the plant foliage. The results showed that a healthy coffee leaf has a mean transmittance of 41.53 μW for the NIR region, while for the infected leaves, the mean transmittance is 47.06 μW. Healthy coffee Robusta leaves showed significant differences in their transmittance properties compared to infected coffee Robusta leaves in the UV (r = −0.15, p = 0.021, F = 5.8, t = −0.286), visible (r = −0.15, p = 0.018, F = 6.11, t = −2.88), and NIR (r = −0.14, p = 0.027, F = 5.28, t = −2.99) regions. A CLM index was introduced based on the intensity ratio of green and red wavelengths. I535/575 showed positive correlation with the estimated chlorophyll-a concentration for healthy (r = 0.94, p = 0.227) and infected (r = 0.56, p = 0.622) leaves. This method leads to the development of portable sensors for the early detection of CLM pests in plants.

1. Introduction

Coffee Robusta (Coffea canephora) is one of the four varieties of coffee cultivated in the Philippines. The others are arabica, liberica, and excelsa [1]. Based on the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) 2015 data, there are about 276,000 coffee farms in the country, which comprise 77.4 million trees [2]. Among the three coffee varieties in the Philippines, Robusta is the most commonly planted, which accounted for 73.5% percent of the total production in 2023. Efforts have been made to revive coffee farming and improve the quality of Philippine coffee [1,3].
Over the years, the coffee industry in the Philippines has faced several challenges, including Coffee Leaf Miner (CLM) (Leucoptera coffeella) and other diseases periodically affecting coffee crops, leading to reduced yields and quality, and outdated farming practices, lack of access to modern technology, and inadequate infrastructure, which have contributed to low coffee yields [4,5,6]. CLM moth larvae are the primary causal agent of crop damage to coffee plantations [5]. The damage results from its larvae that feed on coffee leaves, which reduces fruit production [6]. The larvae feed on the mesophyll of the coffee tree leaves and create mines [7,8,9].
Having a method for the detection of plant diseases is very important to lessen the possible impact on its production, and this can be achieved using various methods. The analysis of optical properties of plants can be carried out in two ways, destructive and non-destructive [10,11,12,13]. Destructive processes include microscopy and spectrophotometry that require the actual sample plant to undergo different processes inside the lab [13]. On the other hand, the non-destructive approach incorporates the use of a portable sensor to determine the optical properties, which is easier to carry out and less time consuming [10,11,12]. Such methods stated above have been successfully used for the early detection and diagnosis for plant health [14,15].
In this study, we aim to analyze the optical properties of healthy and infected coffee Robusta leaves using a Thorlabs PM400 Optical Power Meter. Specifically, we identify the transmittance in the UV-Vis-NIR spectrum to quantitatively determine the signature responses and characterize healthy and infected coffee Robusta leaves. Statistical analyses such as t-tests and Pearson’s r correlation were used to determine differences in the healthy and infected coffee Robusta leaves. Lastly, the results from this study provide preliminary data for the development of non-destructive portable sensors in CLM detection.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Identification

Coffee Robusta plants were verified and collected from the Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Plant Industry (DA-BPI), Manila, Philippines. The plants were placed inside the laboratory to acclimatize to ambient conditions. Twenty (20) leaf samples of each of the 6-month-old healthy and CLM-infected plants were identified based on translucent patches on the plant foliage. CLM pests reduce the photosynthetic leaf surface, where brown spots are visible on the infected leaves. All leaf samples investigated were marked with regions of interest (ROIs), as shown in Figure 1a. The measurements were performed in a dark room to remove light noise.

2.2. Transmittance Properties

Transmittance spectra of healthy and infected leaves were measured with an optical power meter (Thorlabs PM400, Newton, NJ, USA) connected with S120VC standard photodiode power sensor. Leaf transmittance was analyzed through the UV-Vis and NIR spectrum wavelengths at the 200–1100 nm wavelength interval. Healthy and infected leaves were placed individually at 90° by illuminating the adaxial surface about 8 inches to the High-Power Xenon Light source (Ocean Insight HPX-2000, Orlando, FL, USA). Light passed through the leaf surface to the power sensor and the transmittance reading was reflected to the power meter, as shown in Figure 1b.

2.3. Statistical Analyses

The ratio between the normalized intensity values from green (535 nm) and red (575 nm) were calculated. Pearson’s r correlation was used to compare the estimated chlorophyll content and the ratio for both healthy and infected leaves. T-tests for independent samples were computed for the transmitted power for the coffee leaves in the UV-Vis-NIR regions.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Microscopic Characterization of Coffee Robusta Leaves

Under microscopic observations, CLM pests only invaded the upper dermis (Figure 2). The epidermal cells and the cell walls are destroyed due to attacks from CLM pests [16]. To further analyze the morphological conditions of the coffee Robusta leaves, transmission or scanning electron microscopies are recommended.
In this study, we introduce a CLM index (I535/575) by measuring the ratio between intensities from 535 nm (green) and 575 nm (red), as shown in Table 1. The normalized intensities in the red and green region varies for healthy and infected leaves. The CLM index showed positive correlation with the estimated chlorophyll-a concentration for healthy (r = 0.94, p = 0.227) and infected (r = 0.56, p = 0.622) leaves. This study showed a similar high correlation between chlorophyll content and RGB values, as discussed in different articles in the literature [17,18].

3.2. Transmittance Measurements

Table 2 summarizes the transmittance measurements in the healthy and infected coffee Robusta leaves from the UV-Vis-NIR spectrum. The power measured using the transmittance of healthy and infected coffee Robusta leaves varies from the UV, visible, and near infrared spectrum. The spectral response of infected leaves is higher compared to healthy leaves. This is due to the breakdown of the upper dermis and cell walls caused by CLM [19]. These results may affect the phenotype of leaves but also the photosynthetic ability of leaves to produce chlorophyll and other nutrients. The response of the near-infrared spectrum is significantly different from healthy and infected leaves, which can be used to understand the early detection of pests, physiological disorders, and ozone damage [20,21,22].
The relationships between healthy and infected coffee Robusta leaves were statistically measured using t-tests. Healthy coffee Robusta leaves showed significant differences in their transmittance properties compared to infected coffee Robusta leaves in the UV (r = −0.15, p = 0.021, F = 5.8, t = −0.286), visible (r = −0.15, p = 0.018, F = 6.11, t = −2.88), and NIR (r = −0.14, p = 0.027, F = 5.28, t = −2.99) regions. This study is a good reference for the development of non-destructive techniques in agriculture and environmental monitoring.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.B., J.C., J.R.L., E.V. and M.C.G.; methodology, J.C.; software, J.C.; validation, J.C., J.B. and J.R.L.; formal analysis, J.C.; investigation, J.B., J.C. and J.R.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.C., J.B. and J.R.L.; writing—review and editing, J.C., J.B. and J.R.L.; visualization, J.C., J.B. and J.R.L.; supervision, E.V. and M.C.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge support from the Department of Science and Technology-ASTHRDP, Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Plant Industry, De La Salle University through CENSER-EARTH Laboratory, University of the Philippines Visayas, and Visayas State University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 2017–2022 Philippine Coffee Industry Road Map, June 2019. Available online: https://www.da.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Philippine-Coffee-Industry-Roadmap-2017-2022.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2023).
  2. NCRDEC Ongoing Projects, December 2021. Available online: https://cvsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ongoing-and-Newly-Approved-Projects.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2023).
  3. Putra, B.T.W.; Soni, P.; Morimoto, E.; Pujiyanto, P. Estimating Biophysical Properties of Coffee (Coffea Canephora) Plants with above-Canopy Field Measurements, Using CropSpec®. Int. Agrophysics 2018, 32, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Our Coffee Heritage: Coffee’s Rich History in the Philippines. Our Coffee Heritage: Coffee’s Rich History in the Philippines. Available online: https://philcoffeeboard.com/philippine-coffee/ (accessed on 14 August 2023).
  5. Widjaja Putra, B.T.; Soni, P. Enhanced Broadband Greenness in Assessing Chlorophyll a and b, Carotenoid, and Nitrogen in Robusta Coffee Plantations Using a Digital Camera. Precis. Agric. 2017, 19, 238–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dantas, J.; Motta, I.O.; Vidal, L.A.; Nascimento, E.F.M.B.; Bilio, J.; Pupe, J.M.; Veiga, A.; Carvalho, C.; Lopes, R.B.; Rocha, T.L.; et al. A Comprehensive Review of the Coffee Leaf Miner Leucoptera Coffeella (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae)—A Major Pest for the Coffee Crop in Brazil and others Neotropical countries. Insects 2021, 12, 1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Leite, S.A.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Santos, M.P.d.; Costa, D.R.d.; Moreira, A.A.; Matsumoto, S.N.; Lemos, O.L.; Castellani, M.A. Profile of Coffee Crops and Management of the Neotropical Coffee Leaf Miner, Leucoptera Coffeella. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Box, H.E. The Bionomics of the White Coffee-Leaf Miner, Leucoptera coffeella, Guér., in Kenya Colony. (Lepidoptera, Lyonetidae.). Bull. Entomol. Res. 2023, 14, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Santos, L.M.D.; Ferraz, G.A.E.S.; Marin, D.B.; Carvalho, M.A.D.F.; Dias, J.E.L.; Alecrim, A.D.O.; Silva, M.D.L.O.E. Vegetation Indices Applied to Suborbital Multispectral Images of Healthy Coffee and Coffee Infested with Coffee Leaf Miner. AgriEngineering 2022, 4, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ali, M.M.; Bachik, N.A.; Muhadi, N.A.; Yusof TN, T.; Gomes, C. Non-Destructive Techniques of Detecting Plant Diseases: A Review. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2019, 108, 101426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Morellos, A.; Tziotzios, G.; Orfanidou, C.; Pantazi, X.E.; Sarantaris, C.; Maliogka, V.; Alexandridis, T.K.; Moshou, D. Non-Destructive Early Detection and Quantitative Severity Stage Classification of Tomato Chlorosis Virus (ToCV) Infection in Young Tomato Plants Using Vis–NIR Spectroscopy. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Meng, X.; Zheng, Y.; Liu, W. Development of Non-Destructive Testing Device for Plant Leaf Expansion Monitoring. Electronics 2023, 12, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Martinelli, F.; Scalenghe, R.; Davino, S.; Panno, S.; Scuderi, G.; Ruisi, P.; Villa, P.; Stroppiana, D.; Boschetti, M.; Goulart, L.R.; et al. Advanced Methods of Plant Disease Detection. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 35, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Herrmann, I.; Berenstein, M.; Paz-Kagan, T.; Sade, A.; Karnieli, A. Spectral assessment of two-spotted spider mite damage levels in the leaves of greenhouse-grown pepper and bean. Biosyst. Eng. 2017, 157, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bravo, C.; Moshou, D.; West, J.; McCartney, A.; Ramon, H. Early Disease Detection in Wheat Fields Using Spectral Reflectance. Biosyst. Eng. 2003, 84, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chen, J.; Shen, Z.-J.; Lu, W.-Z.; Liu, X.; Wu, F.-H.; Gao, G.-F.; Liu, Y.-L.; Wu, C.-S.; Yan, C.-L.; Fan, H.-Q.; et al. Leaf miner-induced morphological, physiological and molecular changes in mangrove plant Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh. Tree Physiol. 2017, 31, 82–97. [Google Scholar]
  17. Yadav, S.P.; Ibaraki, Y.; Dutta Gupta, S. Estimation of the chlorophyll content of micropropagated potato plants using RGB based image analysis. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2009, 100, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vollmann, J.; Walter, H.; Sato, T.; Schweiger, P. Digital image analysis and chlorophyll metering for phenotyping the effects of nodulation in soybean. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2011, 75, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Merzlyak, M.; Gitelson, A.; Chivkunova, O.; Solovchenko, A.; Pogosyn, S. Application of Reflectance Spectroscopy for Analysis of Higher Plant Pigments. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2003, 50, 704–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Merzlyak, M.; Melo, T.; Naqvi, K. Estimation of leaf transmittance in the near infrared region through reflectance measurements. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2004, 74, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Chivkunova, O.; Solovchenko, A.; Sokolova, S.; Merzlyak, M.; Reshetnikova, I.; Gitelson, A. Reflectance spectral features and detection of superficial scald-induced browning in storing apple fruit. Russ. J. Phytopathol. 2001, 2, 73–77. [Google Scholar]
  22. Peñuelas, J.; Filella, I. Visible and near-infrared reflectance techniques for diagnosing plant physiological status. Trends Plant Sci. 1998, 3, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Experimental set-up of the leaf transmittance properties investigation of coffee Robusta plants. (a) Region of interest (ROI); (b) setup.
Figure 1. Experimental set-up of the leaf transmittance properties investigation of coffee Robusta plants. (a) Region of interest (ROI); (b) setup.
Engproc 56 00009 g001
Figure 2. RGB intensity vs. frequency. (a) Healthy coffee leaf; (b) infected coffee leaf.
Figure 2. RGB intensity vs. frequency. (a) Healthy coffee leaf; (b) infected coffee leaf.
Engproc 56 00009 g002
Table 1. Normalized intensity of RGB data from coffee Robusta leaves (n = 20, p = 0.05).
Table 1. Normalized intensity of RGB data from coffee Robusta leaves (n = 20, p = 0.05).
RGB Data *Normalized Intensity (a.u.)I535/575Chlorophyll-a Concentration (mg/L)
RedGreenRange (Mean ± St.Dev.)
Healthy0.27–0.960.31–0.980.81–0.97 (0.92)0.34
Infected0.08–0.160.30–0.850.26–0.39 (0.33)0.12
* No significant change in the blue wavelength for both healthy and infected leaves.
Table 2. Transmittance measurements (μW) of healthy and infected coffee Robusta plants (n = 20, p = 0.05).
Table 2. Transmittance measurements (μW) of healthy and infected coffee Robusta plants (n = 20, p = 0.05).
Robusta LeavesHealthyInfected
SpectrumUV VisibleNear-IRUVVisibleNear-IR
Range71.15–95.4442.65–75.933.3–47.5675.95–139.6559.25–10938.03–68.18
Mean ± St.Dev.84.35 ± 6.9565.96 ± 5.3441.53 ± 3.2695.06 ± 15.2174.19 ± 11.9147.06 ± 7.16
Variance48.2528.5510.62231.2141.7751.21
Skew0.050.070.061.341.341.31
Kurtosis−0.88−0.78−0.662.582.542.76
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bulan, J.; Cadondon, J.; Lesidan, J.R.; Vallar, E.; Galvez, M.C. Transmittance Properties of Healthy and Infected Coffee Robusta Leaves with Coffee Leaf Miner (CLM) Pests. Eng. Proc. 2023, 56, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/ASEC2023-15235

AMA Style

Bulan J, Cadondon J, Lesidan JR, Vallar E, Galvez MC. Transmittance Properties of Healthy and Infected Coffee Robusta Leaves with Coffee Leaf Miner (CLM) Pests. Engineering Proceedings. 2023; 56(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/ASEC2023-15235

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bulan, Jejomar, Jumar Cadondon, James Roy Lesidan, Edgar Vallar, and Maria Cecilia Galvez. 2023. "Transmittance Properties of Healthy and Infected Coffee Robusta Leaves with Coffee Leaf Miner (CLM) Pests" Engineering Proceedings 56, no. 1: 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/ASEC2023-15235

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop