## 5 Conclusions  
The main conclusions of this study are as follows:  
1. Higher resolution of the images does not improve the accuracy of the models, as demonstrated by the results conducted for estimation. Similar results are to be expected for prediction, but future studies should confirm this hypothesis. 2. Accurate anticipation of which plants will exhibit ornamental traits, losing less than 20% of accuracy with respect to assessment when plants are fully developed, can be performed up to seven weeks ahead of complete development of the plants. In addition, no loss was observed with regard to precision, i.e., the model exhibited a perfect capability to discard non-ornamental plants. Estimation of ornamental potential from morphological measurements and RGB images provide similar accuracy, and even better when using images, and thus, costly assessment of each morphological trait can be substituted by taking a single photograph. Future research might focus on studying the capability of improving the predictions by including several photos instead of only one. Research on the development of more market-aligned criteria that better reflect consumer preferences and actual ornamental value is encouraged as well. Conceptualization, P.A.B., A.M.M.d.N., R.R.-G., A.M.M. and V.M.-M.; methodology, P.A.B., R.R.-G., A.M.M.d.N. and V.M.-M.; software, R.R.-G., A.M.M.d.N. and V.M.-M.; validation, P.A.B., R.R.-G., V.M.-M. and C.C. ; investigation, P.A.B., R.R.-G., A.M.M., F.S.d.S., A.M.M.d.N., E.R.d.R., S.P., C.P.S. and C.d.S.B. ; resources, P.A.B. ; data curation, P.A.B., R.R.-G., A.M.M.d.N., V.M.-M., E.R.d.R., S.P., C.P.S. and C.d.S.B. ; writing--original draft preparation, A.M.M.d.N. and R.R.-G.; writing--review and editing, P.A.B., A.M.M., F.S.d.S., V.M.-M., C.C., E.R.d.R. and C.P.S. ; visualization, R.R.-G., A.M.M.d.N. and V.M.-M.; supervision, R.R.-G., C.C. and V.M.-M.; project administration, P.A.B. ; funding acquisition, P.A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research was funded by CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico), grant number 408444/2021-5. Not applicable. The data presented in this study are openly available in Zenodo's repository at [[https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15172723](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15172723)]([https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15172723](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15172723)) [29]. The authors would like to thank [PERSON] for his support in setting up the boxes to acquire the photos. The authors would also like to thank the Postgraduate Program in Agricultural Sciences at CPCE/UFPI for providing the controlled vegetation house used to conduct the experiments during plant growth. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: \begin{tabular}{l l} CD & Canopy Diameter \\ CG & Controlled Greenhouse \\ CNNs & Convolutional Neural Networks \\ CFCE & Campus Professor [PERSON] \\ CSV & Comma-Separated Values \\ F\({}_{2}\) & Generation produced by crossing individuals from the F\({}_{1}\) generation \\ FC\(\geq\)10 & Fruit Count per plant above or equal to ten \\ GH & Growth Habit \\ GPU & Graphics Processing Unit \\ IPGRI & International Plant Genetic Resources Institute \\ JPEG & Joint Photographic Experts Group \\ LED & Light-Emitting Diode \\ LD & Leaf Density \\ LSTM & Long Short-Term Memory \\ OP & Ornamental Potential \\ PH & Plant Height \\ PH/CD & Plant Height to Canopy Diameter ratio \\ RAM & Random-access memory \\ \end{tabular}   
Figure 14: Confusion matrix obtained with the test dataset for the classification of ornamental pepper plants when using images from July 13 and a ViT-based model. Ornamental classification according to experts criterion. Figure 13: Confusion matrix obtained with the test dataset for the classification of ornamental pepper plants when using images from July 6 and a ViT-based model. Ornamental classification according to experts criterion.