Cutting management of multipurpose tree legumes: effects on green herbage production, leaf retention and water-use-efficiency during the dry season in Timor, Indonesia

Edible herbage production and water-use-efficiency of three tree legumes (Leucaena leucocephala cv. Tarramba, L. pallida x L. leucocephala (KX2) and Gliricidia sepium), cut at different times of the year (February, April, June and uncut) were compared in a semi-arid area of Timor Island, Indonesia. Cutting in the early and mid dry-season (April and June) resulted in higher total leaf production (P< 0.05) and water-use-efficiency (P< 0.05), than cutting late in the wet-season (February) or being left uncut. For the leucaena treatments removing leaf in the early to mid dry-season reduced transpiration, saving soil water for subsequent regrowth as evidenced by the higher relative water contents of leaves from these treatments. This cutting strategy can be applied to local farming conditions to increase the supply of feed for livestock during the dry season.

The benefits of oscillating disc cutting

The benefits of Oscillating Disc Cutting (ODC) over all conventional cutting techniques is that it is capable of breaking very hard rock at acceptable-to-good excavation rates with very low cutter forces. This paper outlines that the oscillating cutting action and the water jets as well as the inertial mass all serve to reduce cutter forces.

Mach edges: local features predicted by 3rd derivative spatial filtering

Edges are key points of information in visual scenes. One important class of models supposes that edges correspond to the steepest parts of the luminance profile, implying that they can be found as peaks and troughs in the response of a gradient (1st derivative) filter, or as zero-crossings in the 2nd derivative (ZCs). We tested those ideas using a stimulus that has no local peaks of gradient and no ZCs, at any scale. The stimulus profile is analogous to the Mach ramp, but it is the luminance gradient (not the absolute luminance) that increases as a linear ramp between two plateaux; the luminance profile is a blurred triangle-wave. For all image-blurs tested, observers marked edges at or close to the corner points in the gradient profile, even though these were not gradient maxima. These Mach edges correspond to peaks and troughs in the 3rd derivative. Thus Mach edges are inconsistent with many standard edge-detection schemes, but are nicely predicted by a recent model that finds edge points with a 2-stage sequence of 1st then 2nd derivative operators, each followed by a half-wave rectifier.

Mach edges: a critical test of the nonlinear 3rd derivative model for edge-detection

Feature detection is a crucial stage of visual processing. In previous feature-marking experiments we found that peaks in the 3rd derivative of the luminance profile can signify edges where there are no 1st derivative peaks nor 2nd derivative zero-crossings (Wallis and George 'Mach edges' (the edges of Mach bands) were nicely predicted by a new nonlinear model based on 3rd derivative filtering. As a critical test of the model, we now use a new class of stimuli, formed by adding a linear luminance ramp to the blurred triangle waves used previously. The ramp has no effect on the second or higher derivatives, but the nonlinear model predicts a shift from seeing two edges to seeing only one edge as the added ramp gradient increases. In experiment 1, subjects judged whether one or two edges were visible on each trial. In experiment 2, subjects used a cursor to mark perceived edges and bars. The position and polarity of the marked edges were close to model predictions. Both experiments produced the predicted shift from two to one Mach edge, but the shift was less complete than predicted. We conclude that the model is a useful predictor of edge perception, but needs some modification.

Blurred edges look faint, and faint edges look sharp:The effect of a gradient threshold in a multi-scale edge coding model

A multi-scale model of edge coding based on normalized Gaussian derivative filters successfully predicts perceived scale (blur) for a wide variety of edge profiles [Georgeson, M. A., May, K. A., Freeman, T. C. A., & Hesse, G. S. (in press). From filters to features: Scale-space analysis of edge and blur coding in human vision. Journal of Vision]. Our model spatially differentiates the luminance profile, half-wave rectifies the 1st derivative, and then differentiates twice more, to give the 3rd derivative of all regions with a positive gradient. This process is implemented by a set of Gaussian derivative filters with a range of scales. Peaks in the inverted normalized 3rd derivative across space and scale indicate the positions and scales of the edges. The edge contrast can be estimated from the height of the peak. The model provides a veridical estimate of the scale and contrast of edges that have a Gaussian integral profile. Therefore, since scale and contrast are independent stimulus parameters, the model predicts that the perceived value of either of these parameters should be unaffected by changes in the other. This prediction was found to be incorrect: reducing the contrast of an edge made it look sharper, and increasing its scale led to a decrease in the perceived contrast. Our model can account for these effects when the simple half-wave rectifier after the 1st derivative is replaced by a smoothed threshold function described by two parameters. For each subject, one pair of parameters provided a satisfactory fit to the data from all the experiments presented here and in the accompanying paper [May, K. A. & Georgeson, M. A. (2007). Added luminance ramp alters perceived edge blur and contrast: A critical test for derivative-based models of edge coding. Vision Research, 47, 1721-1731]. Thus, when we allow for the visual system's insensitivity to very shallow luminance gradients, our multi-scale model can be extended to edge coding over a wide range of contrasts and blurs. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mach edges: a key role for 3rd derivative filters in spatial vision

Edges are key points of information in visual scenes. One important class of models supposes that edges correspond to the steepest parts of the luminance profile, implying that they can be found as peaks and troughs in the response of a gradient (first-derivative) filter, or as zero-crossings (ZCs) in the second-derivative. A variety of multi-scale models are based on this idea. We tested this approach by devising a stimulus that has no local peaks of gradient and no ZCs, at any scale. Our stimulus profile is analogous to the classic Mach-band stimulus, but it is the local luminance gradient (not the absolute luminance) that increases as a linear ramp between two plateaux. The luminance profile is a smoothed triangle wave and is obtained by integrating the gradient profile. Subjects used a cursor to mark the position and polarity of perceived edges. For all the ramp-widths tested, observers marked edges at or close to the corner points in the gradient profile, even though these were not gradient maxima. These new Mach edges correspond to peaks and troughs in the third-derivative. They are analogous to Mach bands - light and dark bars are seen where there are no luminance peaks but there are peaks in the second derivative. Here, peaks in the third derivative were seen as light-to-dark edges, troughs as dark-to-light edges. Thus Mach edges are inconsistent with many standard edge detectors, but are nicely predicted by a new model that uses a (nonlinear) third-derivative operator to find edge points.

Edges and bars: where do people see features in 1-D images?

There have been two main approaches to feature detection in human and computer vision - based either on the luminance distribution and its spatial derivatives, or on the spatial distribution of local contrast energy. Thus, bars and edges might arise from peaks of luminance and luminance gradient respectively, or bars and edges might be found at peaks of local energy, where local phases are aligned across spatial frequency. This basic issue of definition is important because it guides more detailed models and interpretations of early vision. Which approach better describes the perceived positions of features in images? We used the class of 1-D images defined by Morrone and Burr in which the amplitude spectrum is that of a (partially blurred) square-wave and all Fourier components have a common phase. Observers used a cursor to mark where bars and edges were seen for different test phases (Experiment 1) or judged the spatial alignment of contours that had different phases (e.g. 0 degrees and 45 degrees ; Experiment 2). The feature positions defined by both tasks shifted systematically to the left or right according to the sign of the phase offset, increasing with the degree of blur. These shifts were well predicted by the location of luminance peaks (bars) and gradient peaks (edges), but not by energy peaks which (by design) predicted no shift at all. These results encourage models based on a Gaussian-derivative framework, but do not support the idea that human vision uses points of phase alignment to find local, first-order features. Nevertheless, we argue that both approaches are presently incomplete and a better understanding of early vision may combine insights from both. (C)2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Bars and edges: what makes a feature for human vision?

There have been two main approaches to feature detection in human and computer vision - luminance-based and energy-based. Bars and edges might arise from peaks of luminance and luminance gradient respectively, or bars and edges might be found at peaks of local energy, where local phases are aligned across spatial frequency. This basic issue of definition is important because it guides more detailed models and interpretations of early vision. Which approach better describes the perceived positions of elements in a 3-element contour-alignment task? We used the class of 1-D images defined by Morrone and Burr in which the amplitude spectrum is that of a (partially blurred) square wave and Fourier components in a given image have a common phase. Observers judged whether the centre element (eg ±458 phase) was to the left or right of the flanking pair (eg 0º phase). Lateral offset of the centre element was varied to find the point of subjective alignment from the fitted psychometric function. This point shifted systematically to the left or right according to the sign of the centre phase, increasing with the degree of blur. These shifts were well predicted by the location of luminance peaks and other derivative-based features, but not by energy peaks which (by design) predicted no shift at all. These results on contour alignment agree well with earlier ones from a more explicit feature-marking task, and strongly suggest that human vision does not use local energy peaks to locate basic first-order features. [Supported by the Wellcome Trust (ref: 056093)]

The primal sketch revisited: locating and representing edges in human vision via Gaussian-derivative filtering

Marr's work offered guidelines on how to investigate vision (the theory - algorithm - implementation distinction), as well as specific proposals on how vision is done. Many of the latter have inevitably been superseded, but the approach was inspirational and remains so. Marr saw the computational study of vision as tightly linked to psychophysics and neurophysiology, but the last twenty years have seen some weakening of that integration. Because feature detection is a key stage in early human vision, we have returned to basic questions about representation of edges at coarse and fine scales. We describe an explicit model in the spirit of the primal sketch, but tightly constrained by psychophysical data. Results from two tasks (location-marking and blur-matching) point strongly to the central role played by second-derivative operators, as proposed by Marr and Hildreth. Edge location and blur are evaluated by finding the location and scale of the Gaussian-derivative `template' that best matches the second-derivative profile (`signature') of the edge. The system is scale-invariant, and accurately predicts blur-matching data for a wide variety of 1-D and 2-D images. By finding the best-fitting scale, it implements a form of local scale selection and circumvents the knotty problem of integrating filter outputs across scales. [Supported by BBSRC and the Wellcome Trust]

Mach Bands: multi-scale spatial filtering and co-operative coding of edges and bars

Perception of Mach bands may be explained by spatial filtering ('lateral inhibition') that can be approximated by 2nd derivative computation, and several alternative models have been proposed. To distinguish between them, we used a novel set of ‘generalised Gaussian’ images, in which the sharp ramp-plateau junction of the Mach ramp was replaced by smoother transitions. The images ranged from a slightly blurred Mach ramp to a Gaussian edge and beyond, and also included a sine-wave edge. The probability of seeing Mach Bands increased with the (relative) sharpness of the junction, but was largely independent of absolute spatial scale. These data did not fit the predictions of MIRAGE, nor 2nd derivative computation at a single fine scale. In experiment 2, observers used a cursor to mark features on the same set of images. Data on perceived position of Mach bands did not support the local energy model. Perceived width of Mach bands was poorly explained by a single-scale edge detection model, despite its previous success with Mach edges (Wallis & Georgeson, 2009, Vision Research, 49, 1886-1893). A more successful model used separate (odd and even) scale-space filtering for edges and bars, local peak detection to find candidate features, and the MAX operator to compare odd- and even-filter response maps (Georgeson, VSS 2006, Journal of Vision 6(6), 191a). Mach bands are seen when there is a local peak in the even-filter (bar) response map, AND that peak value exceeds corresponding responses in the odd-filter (edge) maps.