Comparative UAV and field phenotyping to assess yield and nitrogen use efficiency in hibrid and conventional barley

With the commercialization and increasing availability of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) multiple rotor copters have expanded rapidly in plant phenotyping studies with their ability to provide clear, high resolution images. As such, the traditional bottleneck of plant phenotyping has shifted from data collection to data processing. Fortunately, the necessarily controlled and repetitive design of plant phenotyping allows for the development of semi-automatic computer processing tools that may sufficiently reduce the time spent in data extraction. Here we present a comparison of UAV and field based high throughput plant phenotyping (HTPP) using the free, open-source image analysis software FIJI (Fiji is just ImageJ) using RGB (conventional digital cameras), multispectral and thermal aerial imagery in combination with a matching suite of ground sensors in a study of two hybrids and one conventional barely variety with ten different nitrogen treatments, combining different fertilization levels and application schedules. A detailed correlation network for physiological traits and exploration of the data comparing between treatments and varieties provided insights into crop performance under different management scenarios. Multivariate regression models explained 77.8, 71.6, and 82.7% of the variance in yield from aerial, ground, and combined data sets, respectively

Comparative UAV and Field Phenotyping to Assess Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Hybrid and Conventional Barley

With the commercialization and increasing availability of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) multiple rotor copters have expanded rapidly in plant phenotyping studies with their ability to provide clear, high resolution images. As such, the traditional bottleneck of plant phenotyping has shifted from data collection to data processing. Fortunately, the necessarily controlled and repetitive design of plant phenotyping allows for the development of semi-automatic computer processing tools that may sufficiently reduce the time spent in data extraction. Here we present a comparison of UAV and field based high throughput plant phenotyping (HTPP) using the free, open-source image analysis software FIJI (Fiji is just ImageJ) using RGB (conventional digital cameras), multispectral and thermal aerial imagery in combination with a matching suite of ground sensors in a study of two hybrids and one conventional barely variety with ten different nitrogen treatments, combining different fertilization levels and application schedules. A detailed correlation network for physiological traits and exploration of the data comparing between treatments and varieties provided insights into crop performance under different management scenarios. Multivariate regression models explained 77.8, 71.6, and 82.7% of the variance in yield from aerial, ground, and combined data sets, respectively

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)