| Literature DB >> 29300315 |
Wenwen Kong1, Chu Zhang2,3, Weihao Huang4, Fei Liu5,6, Yong He7,8.
Abstract
Hyperspectral imaging covering the spectral range of 384-1034 nm combined with chemometric methods was used to detect Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (SS) on oilseed rape stems by two sample sets (60 healthy and 60 infected stems for each set). Second derivative spectra and PCA loadings were used to select the optimal wavelengths. Discriminant models were built and compared to detect SS on oilseed rape stems, including partial least squares-discriminant analysis, radial basis function neural network, support vector machine and extreme learning machine. The discriminant models using full spectra and optimal wavelengths showed good performance with classification accuracies of over 80% for the calibration and prediction set. Comparing all developed models, the optimal classification accuracies of the calibration and prediction set were over 90%. The similarity of selected optimal wavelengths also indicated the feasibility of using hyperspectral imaging to detect SS on oilseed rape stems. The results indicated that hyperspectral imaging could be used as a fast, non-destructive and reliable technique to detect plant diseases on stems.Entities:
Keywords: Sclerotinia sclerotiorum; discriminant models; oilseed rape stem; second derivative spectra
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29300315 PMCID: PMC5796448 DOI: 10.3390/s18010123
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Spectra of sample set 1 and 2 (a,b) and corresponding average spectra of healthy and infected stems of sample set 1 and 2 (c,d).
Results of discriminant models using full spectra and pixel-wise spectra of sample set 1 and 2.
| Models | Sample Set 1 | Sample Set 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| par a | cal b | pre c | par | cal | pre | ||
| Average spectra | PLS-DA | 9 | 98.75 | 100 | 10 | 98.75 | 92.50 |
| RBFNN | 0.8 | 100 | 97.50 | 0.1 | 100 | 87.50 | |
| ELM | 20 | 100 | 100 | 19 | 100 | 97.50 | |
| SVM | (16, 1.7411) | 97.50 | 92.50 | (9.1896, 0.0206) | 97.50 | 90.00 | |
| Pixel-wise spectra | PLS-DA | 8 | 95.43 | 94.80 | 8 | 97.53 | 96.60 |
| RBFNN | 0.4 | 100 | 98.80 | 0.6 | 100 | 98.70 | |
| SVM | (256, 0.0039) | 99.27 | 99.00 | (84.4485, 0.0118) | 99.73 | 99.30 | |
| ELM | 367 | 99.83 | 99.40 | 416 | 99.77 | 99.50 | |
a: par represents the parameters of the models, meaning number of optimal latent variables (LV) in PLS-DA model, spread value in RBFNN model, number of nodes in the hidden layer in EKM model, (C, γ) in SVM model; b: cal represents the calibration set (%); c: pre represents the prediction set (%).
Figure 2Optimal wavelength selection of sample set 1 and 2 by 2nd derivative spectra (a,b) and the PCA loadings (c,d).
Optimal wavelengths selection of sample set 1 and 2 selected by 2nd derivative spectra and the PCA loadings of sample set 1 and 2 using sample average spectra.
| Method | Sample Set 1 | Sample Set 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Wavelength (nm) | Number | Wavelength (nm) | |
| 2nd derivative spectra | 13 | 443.53, 460.58, 507.12, 547.86, 557.78, 578.91, 592.63, 606.38, 637.75, 690.83, 706.69, 712.45, 730.32 | 16 | 443.53, 459.36, 507.12, 533.01, 547.86, 557.78, 578.91, 592.63, 606.38, 637.75, 650.34, 659.18, 690.83, 706.69, 712.45, 730.32 |
| PCA loadings | 15 | 439.89, 550.34, 551.57, 571.44, 595.13, 610.13, 650.34, 656.65, 673.08, 678.15, 704.81, 735.43, 752.08, 761.06, 950.13 | 16 | 439.89, 547.86, 549.1, 581.4, 596.38, 608.88, 649.08, 660.44, 678.15, 685.76, 692.1, 703.54, 734.15, 754.65, 761.06,950.13 |
Results of discriminant models using optimal wavelengths of sample set 1 and 2.
| 2nd Derivative Spectra | PCA Loadings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| par | cal | pre | par | cal | pre | ||
| Sample set 1 | PLS-DA | 6 | 93.75 | 80.00 | 6 | 96.25 | 82.50 |
| SVM | (1.7411, 0.1895) | 95.00 | 82.50 | (48.5029,0.3299) | 97.50 | 80.00 | |
| RBFNN | 28 | 100 | 97.50 | 11 | 100 | 97.50 | |
| Sample set 2 | PLS-DA | 7 | 95.00 | 95.00 | 9 | 98.70 | 92.50 |
| SVM | (3.0314,5.2780) | 97.50 | 82.50 | (5.2780,3.0314) | 98.75 | 87.50 | |
| RBFNN | 31 | 100 | 92.50 | 16 | 100 | 95.00 | |
Figure 3Raw and WT preprocessed spectra of 10 pixels from the middle top and 10 pixels from side bottom of a randomly selected stem of sample set 1.
Figure 4Optimal wavelengths selection of sample set 1 and 2 by 2nd derivative spectra (a,b) and the PCA loadings (c,d).
Optimal wavelengths selected by 2nd derivative spectra and the PCA loadings of sample set 1 and 2 using pixel-wise spectra.
| Methods | Sample Set 1 | Sample Set 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Wavelengths (nm) | Number | Wavelengths (nm) | |
| 2nd derivative spectra | 19 | 507.12, 519.44, 528.07, 556.54, 587.64, 598.87, 606.38, 617.65, 646.56, 657.92, 687.02, 707.36, 717.55, 729.04, 749.52, 759.78, 770.06, 780.36, 801.01 | 19 | 507.12, 519.44, 528.07, 536.72, 556.54, 586.39, 598.87, 606.38, 617.65, 646.56, 657.92, 685.76, 707.36, 729.04, 749.52, 758.5, 770.06, 780.36, 801.01 |
| PCA loadings | 14 | 439.89, 529.31, 549.1, 555.29, 627.69, 637.75, 676.88, 679.42, 681.95, 698.45, 745.67, 757.21, 758.5, 950.13 | 16 | 439.89, 526.84, 545.38, 549.1, 551.57, 587.64, 598.87, 620.42, 675.62, 676.88, 688.29, 698.45, 745.67, 754.65, 757.21, 950.13 |
Results of discriminant models using optimal wavelengths of pixel-wise spectra of sample set 1 and 2.
| 2nd Derivative Spectra | PCA Loadings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| par | cal | pre | par | cal | pre | ||
| Sample set 1 | PLS-DA | 7 | 94.17 | 94.60 | 7 | 93.93 | 94.30 |
| SVM | (256, 9.1896) | 99.40 | 98.20 | (84.4485,5.2780) | 99.47 | 98.50 | |
| RBFNN | 3 | 99.37 | 98.40 | 1 | 99.63 | 99.10 | |
| Sample set 2 | PLS-DA | 7 | 96.60 | 96.40 | 4 | 95.07 | 95.50 |
| SVM | (256,16) | 99.87 | 99.40 | (27.8576,9.1896) | 99.83 | 99.20 | |
| RBFNN | 4 | 99.37 | 98.80 | 2 | 99.77 | 99.30 | |
Figure 5Image visualization of one randomly selected sample from each sample set by the SVM models using optimal wavelengths (a) sample set 1; (b) sample set 2.
Optimal wavelengths selection of sample set 1 and 2 selected by Bw using sample average spectra.
| Method | Sample Set 1 | Sample Set 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Wavelength (nm) | Number | Wavelength (nm) | |
| 27 | 447.18,455.71, 474.02, 512.05, 533.01, 554.05, 585.14, 615.15, 633.98, 651.61, 685.76, 692.1, 701.1, 743.11, 789.39, 794.55, 803.6, 811.36, 825.62, 841.21, 847.72, 851.63, 859.46, 879.06, 898.72, 918.45, 950.13 | 30 | 460.58, 461.8, 470.35, 482.58, 500.98, 552.81, 580.16, 602.63, 615.15, 649.08, 664.23, 673.08, 683.22, 690.83, 697.18, 707.36, 716.28, 736.71, 761.06, 785.52, 794.55, 802.3, 806.18, 815.25, 825.62, 851.63, 862.07, 869.9, 898.72, 915.81 | |