| Literature DB >> 29868272 |
Yexin Tu1, Meng Bian2, Yinkang Wan1, Teng Fei1,3.
Abstract
It is generally feasible to classify different species of vegetation based on remotely sensed images, but identification of different sub-species or even cultivars is uncommon. Tea trees (Camellia sinensis L.) have been proven to show great differences in taste and quality between cultivars. We hypothesize that hyperspectral remote sensing would make it possibly to classify cultivars of plants and even to estimate their taste-related biochemical components. In this study, hyperspectral data of the canopies of tea trees were collected by hyperspectral camera mounted on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Tea cultivars were classified according to the spectral characteristics of the tea canopies. Furthermore, two major components influencing the taste of tea, tea polyphenols (TP) and amino acids (AA), were predicted. The results showed that the overall accuracy of tea cultivar classification achieved by support vector machine is higher than 95% with proper spectral pre-processing method. The best results to predict the TP and AA were achieved by partial least squares regression with standard normal variant normalized spectra, and the ratio of TP to AA-which is one proven index for tea taste-achieved the highest accuracy (RCV = 0.66, RMSECV = 13.27) followed by AA (RCV = 0.62, RMSECV = 1.16) and TP (RCV = 0.58, RMSECV = 10.01). The results indicated that classification of tea cultivars using the hyperspectral remote sensing from UAV was successful, and there is a potential to map the taste-related chemical components in tea plantations from UAV platform; however, further exploration is needed to increase the accuracy.Entities:
Keywords: Biochemical parameter estimation; Cultivar classification; Hyperspectral remote sensing; Tea quality; Unmanned aerial vehicle
Year: 2018 PMID: 29868272 PMCID: PMC5978401 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4858
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Visible RGB ortho-mosaic image of the study site on March 23, 2016, acquired using the Cubert UHD185 camera.
Figure 2The Dji-S1000+® UAV equipped with the Cubert® mapping system.
Photo by Teng Fei.
Biochemical components (%) of 85 foliage samples.
| Min | Max | Mean | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP | 46.5 | 110.9 | 85.6 | 1.2 |
| AA | 6.8 | 14.6 | 9.9 | 0.1 |
| P/A | 44.6 | 143.7 | 88.5 | 1.7 |
Note:
Min, minimum; Max, maximum; Mean, mean value; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 3Classification of tea cultivars in the study region, with image pre-processing and classification method combinations of: (A) None+MLC (B) None+MDC (C) None+ANN (D) None+SVM (E) MNF+MLC (F) MNF+MDC (G) MNF+ANN (H) MNF+SVM (I) PCA+MLC (J) PCA+MDC (K) PCA+ANN (L) PCA+SVM (M) ICA+MLC (N) ICA+MDC (O) ICA+ANN (P) ICA+SVM.
Accuracy evaluation of the tea cultivar classification.
| Classification method | MLC (%) | MDC (%) | ANN (%) | SVM (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dimensionality reduction method: None | ||||
| OA | 48.4 | 35.2 | 93.2 | 96.2 |
| Kappa | 41.5 | 26.0 | 92.2 | 95.6 |
| Dimensionality reduction method: MNF | ||||
| OA | 84.0 | 79.8 | 84.8 | 87.6 |
| Kappa | 81.6 | 76.8 | 82.1 | 85.8 |
| Dimensionality reduction method: PCA | ||||
| OA | 86.8 | 78.2 | 90.2 | 95.2 |
| Kappa | 84.9 | 75.0 | 88.8 | 94.5 |
| Dimensionality reduction method: ICA | ||||
| OA | 89.4 | 80.4 | 90.4 | 93.8 |
| Kappa | 87.8 | 77.4 | 89.0 | 92.9 |
RCV and RMSECV (g kg−1) of PLS regression models with multivariate pre-processing methods.
| Target | Factors | TP | AA | P/A | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preprocessing method | RMSECV | RMSECV | RMSECV | ||||
| None | 7 | 0.57 | 10.04 | 0.50 | 1.31 | 0.60 | 14.16 |
| WD | 8 | 0.50 | 10.79 | 0.49 | 1.33 | 0.55 | 14.93 |
| CR | 9 | 0.45 | 11.24 | 0.40 | 1.40 | 0.48 | 15.87 |
| SNV | 7 | 0.58 | 10.01 | 0.62 | 1.16 | 0.66 | 13.27 |
| WD+CR | 9 | 0.49 | 10.77 | 0.35 | 1.46 | 0.42 | 16.37 |
| WD+SNV | 5 | 0.48 | 10.60 | 0.51 | 1.25 | 0.52 | 14.80 |
| CR+SNV | 6 | 0.47 | 12.03 | 0.48 | 2.57 | 0.54 | 14.68 |
| WD+CR+SNV | 10 | 0.52 | 10.55 | 0.44 | 1.46 | 0.50 | 15.49 |
| CR+First+SNV | 9 | 0.42 | 11.55 | 0.30 | 1.52 | 0.43 | 16.57 |
| CR+Second+SNV | 10 | 0.32 | 12.68 | 0.29 | 1.53 | 0.47 | 15.89 |
RCV and RMSECV (g kg−1) of ANN regression model with SNV pre-processing methods.
| Target | TP | AA | P/A | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hidden layer | RMSECV | RMSECV | RMSECV | |||
| 9 | 0.51 | 12.81 | 0.52 | 1.37 | 0.51 | 17.11 |
Figure 4Scatter plots of the reference versus predicted foliar biochemical contents (g kg-1) using PLS and ANN regression (the solid line is the 1:1 line and the dashed line is the regression line between the predicted and measured values) (A) Predicting TP using PLS regression (B) Predicting AA using PLS regression (C) Predicting P/A using PLS regression (D) Predicting TP using ANN (E) Predicting AA using ANN (F) Predicting P/A using ANN.
Correlation coefficient of components and visible bands.
| PCA1 | PCA2 | PCA3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red (650 nm) | 0.21 | 0.97 | 0.03 |
| Green (550 nm) | 0.51 | 0.85 | −0.05 |
| Blue (450 nm) | 0.42 | 0.57 | 0.48 |
Figure 5The percentage of the variance explained by the first three principal components before and after image fusion.