| Literature DB >> 30149592 |
Tingting Chen1, Ruier Zeng2, Wenxuan Guo3, Xueying Hou4, Yubin Lan5, Lei Zhang6.
Abstract
: Remote sensing can be a rapid, accurate, and simple method for assessing pest damage on plants. The objectives of this study were to identify spectral wavelengths sensitive to cotton aphid infestation. Then, the normalized difference spectral indices (NDSI) and ratio spectral indices (RSI) based on the leaf spectrum were obtained within 350⁻2500 nm, and their correlation with infestation were qualified. The results showed that leaf spectral reflectance decreased in the visible range (350⁻700 nm) and the near-infrared range (NIR, 700⁻1300 nm) as aphid damage severity increased, and significant differences were found in blue, green, red, NIR and short-wave infrared (SWIR) band regions between different grades of aphid damage severity. Decrease in Chlorophyll a (Chl a) pigment was more significant than that in Chlorophyll (Chl b) in the infested plants and the Chl a/b ratio showed a decreasing trend with increase in aphid damage severity. The sensitive spectral bands were mainly within NIR and SWIR ranges. The best spectral indices NDSI (R678, R1471) and RSI (R1975, R1904) were formulated with these sensitive spectral regions through reducing precise sampling method. These new indices along with 16 other stress related indices compiled from literature were further tested for their ability to detect aphid damage severity. The two indices in this study showed significantly higher coefficients of determination (R² of 0.81 and 0.81, p < 0.01) and the least RMSE values (RMSE of 0.50 and 0.49), and hence have potential application in assessing aphid infestation severity in cotton.Entities:
Keywords: aphid; biotic stress detection; cotton; hyperspectral indices; remote sensing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30149592 PMCID: PMC6164100 DOI: 10.3390/s18092798
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Details of the field locations selected and sampling adopted for the study.
| Field 1 | Field 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Latitude | 36°08′ N | 36°08′ N |
| Longitude | 114°51′ E | 114°49′ E |
| Altitude (m) | 320 | 320 |
| District | Anyang | Anyang |
| State | China | China |
| Field size (m2) | 1200 | 1800 |
| Cultivars | CCRI-79 | CCRI-79 |
| Date of sowing | 10 April 2017 | 10 April 2017 |
| Sampling date | 24 May 2017 | 24 May 2017 |
| Sampling time | 10:30–12:30 | 10:30–12:30 |
| Sampling number | 46 | 40 |
Grading of cotton plants infested by aphid.
| Grade | Symptom of Aphid Infestation |
|---|---|
| 0 | Healthy plant with no pests |
| 1 | Few aphids scattered over the plant. Foliage free from crinkling or curling with no yellowing symptoms |
| 2 | Crinkling and curling of few leaves in the upper portion of plant |
| 3 | Crinkling and curling of leaves all most all over the plant |
| 4 | Extreme curling, crinkling and drying of leaves all over the plant, plant growth hampered |
Source: Kranthi et al. (2009) [19] (modified).
Vegetation indices used in this study.
| Spectral Vegetation Index | Formula | References | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Simple Ratio (SR) | (R695/R420) | Carter (1994) [ |
| 2 | Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) | (R800 − R670)/(R800 + R670) | Rouse et al. (1974) [ |
| 3 | Disease Water Stress Index 2 (DWSI-2) | (R1660/R550) | Apan et al. (2004) [ |
| 4 | Aphid index (AI) | (R761 − R908)/(R712 − R719) | Mirik et al. (2006) [ |
| 5 | Damage sensitive Spectral Index-2 (DSSI 2) | (R747 − R901 − R537 − R572)/(R747 − R901) + (R537 − R572) | Mirik et al. (2006) [ |
| 6 | Chlorophyll Index (CI) | (R415 − R435)/(R415 + R435) | Barnes (1992) [ |
| 7 | Chl Stress Index 1 (Chl SI-1) | (R415/R695) | Read et al. (2002) [ |
| 8 | Chl Stress Index 2 (Chl SI-2) | (R708/R915) | Zhao et al. (2005) [ |
| 9 | Chl Stress Index 3 (Chl SI-3) | (R551/R915) | Zhao et al. (2005) [ |
| 10 | Leaf Hopper Index (LHI) | (R761 − R691)/(R550 − R715) | Prabhakar et al. (2011) [ |
| 11 | Nitrogen Stress Index 1 (NSI-1) | (R415/R710) | Read et al. (2002) [ |
| 12 | Nitrogen Stress Index 2 (NSI-2) | (R517/R413) | Zhao et al. (2005) [ |
| 13 | Mealybug Stress Index-1 (MSI-1) | (R550 + R768 + R1454) − [R1454/(R550 + R768)] | Prabhakar et al. (2013) [ |
| 14 | Mealybug Stress Index-2 (MSI-2) | (R550 + R768) − (R674 + R1454)/(R1454 + R674) + (R550 + R768) | Prabhakar et al. (2013) [ |
| 15 | Mealybug Stress Index-3 (MSI-3) | (R550 − R674)/(R550 + R674) | Prabhakar et al. (2013) [ |
| 16 | Plant Pigment Ratio (PPR) | (R550-R450)/(R550 + R450) | Metternicht (2003) [ |
| 17 | Aphid Stress Index 1(ASI-1) | (R666-R1462)/(R666 + R1462) | Present study |
| 18 | Aphid Stress Index 2(ASI-2) | (R1908/ R1964) | Present study |
R, reflectance at corresponding wavelength (nm) depicted as subscript.
Figure 1Mean reflectance spectra of cotton plants under different grades of aphid infestation.
Comparison of leaf reflectance between healthy (Grade 0) and aphid infested cotton plants (Grades 1–4) at five broad-band regions of electromagnetic spectrum.
| Parameter | Spectral Region | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blue | Green | Red | NIR | SWIR | |
| Grade 0 | |||||
| Mean reflectance values | 0.0778 ± 0.0098 | 0.1461 ± 0.0184 | 0.0862 ± 0.0105 | 0.5912 ± 0.0147 | 0.3235 ± 0.0052 |
| Grade 1 | |||||
| Mean reflectance values | 0.0765 ± 0.0160 | 0.1393 ± 0.0168 | 0.0811 ± 0.0132 | 0.5505 ± 0.0141 | 0.3200 ± 0.0171 |
| Pr > |t| | <0.00001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** |
| Grade 2 | |||||
| Mean reflectance values | 0.0620 ± 0.0097 | 0.1135 ± 0.0113 | 0.0648 ± 0.0078 | 0.5003 ± 0.0074 | 0.3020 ± 0.0126 |
| Pr > |t| | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** |
| Grade 3 | |||||
| Mean reflectance values | 0.0545 ± 0.0063 | 0.1020 ± 0.0134 | 0.0575 ± 0.0061 | 0.4556 ± 0.0107 | 0.2852 ± 0.0092 |
| Pr > |t| | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** |
| Grade 4 | |||||
| Mean reflectance values | 0.0503 ± 0.0004 | 0.0982 ± 0.0070 | 0.0526 ± 0.0033 | 0.4313 ± 0.0137 | 0.2712 ± 0.0009 |
| Pr > |t| | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** | <0.0001 ** |
** Highly significant (at <0.01%).
Mean chlorophyll concentration and relative water content (RWC) in cotton plants with varying levels of aphid severity.
| Damage Severity | Chl a (μg/cm2) | Chl b (μg/cm2) | Chl a + b (μg/cm2) | RWC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 0 | 46.67 a | 14.00 a | 60.67 a | 79.49 a |
| CV (%) | 3.27 | 7.14 | 0.95 | 1.06 |
| Grade 1 | 40.00 b | 11.67 b | 51.67 b | 78.03 a |
| CV (%) | 5.00 | 4.95 | 4.03 | 1.81 |
| Grade 2 | 31.67 c | 8.67 c | 40.33 c | 70.89 b |
| CV (%) | 4.82 | 6.66 | 2.86 | 1.24 |
| Grade 3 | 24.00 d | 5.67 d | 29.67 d | 68.50 c |
| CV (%) | 4.17 | 20.38 | 7.02 | 1.12 |
| Grade 4 | 17.67 e | 3.33 e | 21.00 e | 63.31 d |
| CV (%) | 6.53 | 45.83 | 12.59 | 1.58 |
| LSD | ** | ** | ** | ** |
CV, Coefficient of variation; LSD, Least significant difference; Values followed by a different small letter within the same column mean significantly different at 0.05 probability level. ** significant differences at 0.01 probability level respectively.
Figure 2Contour maps of coefficients of determination (R2) for linear relationship between NDSI, RSI and aphid infestation grades of cotton leaves in 10 nm sampling interval at 350–2500 nm.
Figure 3Contour maps of coefficients of determination (R2) for linear relationship between NDSI, RSI and aphid infestation grades of cotton leaves in 1 nm sampling interval at sensitive bands.
Figure 4Regression of aphid infestation grades with the aphid stress indices.
Performance of different hyperspectral vegetation indices in linear regression model for assessing cotton aphid damage severity.
| Spectral Vegetation Index | R2 | Slope | RMSE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Simple Ratio (SR) | 0.62 | 25.365 | 0.72 |
| 2 | Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) | 0.07 | 8.69 | 1.12 |
| 3 | Disease Water Stress Index 2 (DWSI-2) | 0.43 | 3.1765 | 0.88 |
| 4 | Aphid index (AI) | 0.25 | −9.8368 | 1.00 |
| 5 | Damage sensitive Spectral Index-2 (DSSI 2) | 0.12 | 0.1429 | 1.09 |
| 6 | Chlorophyll Index (CI) | 0.16 | 17.321 | 1.06 |
| 7 | Chl Stress Index 1 (Chl SI-1) | 0.08 | 3.1007 | 1.11 |
| 8 | Chl Stress Index 2 (Chl SI-2) | 0.08 | 4.1117 | 1.16 |
| 9 | Chl Stress Index 3 (Chl SI-3) | 0.08 | −14.106 | 1.11 |
| 10 | Leaf Hopper Index (LHI) | 0.40 | 7.1082 | 0.89 |
| 11 | Nitrogen Stress Index 1 (NSI-1) | 0.02 | 3.2615 | 1.15 |
| 12 | Nitrogen Stress Index 2 (NSI-2) | 0.05 | −0.9661 | 1.13 |
| 13 | Mealybug Stress Index-1 (MSI-1) | 0.54 | −7.8639 | 0.78 |
| 14 | Mealybug Stress Index-2 (MSI-2) | 0.57 | −5.1301 | 0.76 |
| 15 | Mealybug Stress Index-3 (MSI-3) | 0.02 | 2.8806 | 1.15 |
| 16 | Plant Pigment Ratio (PPR) | 0.02 | −2.5944 | 1.15 |
| 17 | Aphid Stress Index 1 (ASI-1) | 0.81 | 10.993 | 0.50 |
| 18 | Aphid Stress Index 2 (ASI-2) | 0.80 | 25.987 | 0.51 |