| Literature DB >> 31832080 |
Adnan Zahid1, Hasan T Abbas1, Aifeng Ren1,2, Ahmed Zoha1, Hadi Heidari1, Syed A Shah1, Muhammad A Imran1, Akram Alomainy3, Qammer H Abbasi1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The demand for effective use of water resources has increased because of ongoing global climate transformations in the agriculture science sector. Cost-effective and timely distributions of the appropriate amount of water are vital not only to maintain a healthy status of plants leaves but to drive the productivity of the crops and achieve economic benefits. In this regard, employing a terahertz (THz) technology can be more reliable and progressive technique due to its distinctive features. This paper presents a novel, and non-invasive machine learning (ML) driven approach using terahertz waves with a swissto12 material characterization kit (MCK) in the frequency range of 0.75 to 1.1 THz in real-life digital agriculture interventions, aiming to develop a feasible and viable technique for the precise estimation of water content (WC) in plants leaves for 4 days. For this purpose, using measurements observations data, multi-domain features are extracted from frequency, time, time-frequency domains to incorporate three different machine learning algorithms such as support vector machine (SVM), K-nearest neighbour (KNN) and decision-tree (D-Tree).Entities:
Keywords: Agriculture; Classification; Machine learning; Plant leaves; Sensing; Terahertz (THz); Water content
Year: 2019 PMID: 31832080 PMCID: PMC6859614 DOI: 10.1186/s13007-019-0522-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Methods ISSN: 1746-4811 Impact factor: 4.993
Fig. 1Experimental setup of Swissto12 MCK system used for measurements of leaves in the frequency range from 0.75 to 1.1 THz
Fig. 2Transmission response of coffee, pea-shoot, and spinach leaves observed on four different days in the frequency range of 0.75 to 1.1 THz. a Coffee. b Pea-shoot. c Baby spinach
Observations collected for three leaves for four consecutive days
| Leaves | Number of observations |
|---|---|
| 127 | |
| Pea shoot | 76 |
| Baby spinach | 54 |
Fig. 3Identification of target response region (TRR) to consider only relevant and important features for the feature extraction process
Feature extraction technique for all three leaves
| Time domain (statistical features) | Serial no. | Frequency domain features | Serial no. | Time–frequency domain | Serial no. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | |||||
| Mean | 1 | CPSD (D = 20) | 12 | Subband1 | 22 |
| Variance | 2 | CPSD (D = 40) | 13 | Subband2 | 23 |
| (MAD) | 3 | CPSD (D = 60) | 14 | Subband3 | 24 |
| Skewness | 4 | CPSD (D = 80) | 15 | Subband4 | 25 |
| Kurtosis | 5 | CPSD(D = 100) | 16 | ||
| Standard deviation | 6 | PSD (D = 20) | 17 | ||
| MAV | 7 | PSD (D = 40) | 18 | ||
| 75th (Q3) | 8 | PSD (D = 60) | 19 | ||
| 25th (Q1) | 9 | PSD (D = 80) | 20 | ||
| PCC | 10 | PSD (D = 100) | 21 | ||
| IQR | 11 |
Fig. 4The flowchart of the proposed algorithm implementation process
Raw data classification results for three leaves
| Accuracy (%) | Coffee | Peashoot | Baby spinach |
|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | 80.22 | 76.26 | 75.78 |
| KNN | 75.1 | 72.95 | 74.98 |
| DTree | 76.24 | 69.58 | 76.93 |
Fig. 5Classification performance of raw data for coffee, pea shoots and spinach leaves considering all features from 0.75 to 1.1 THz. a Coffee. b Pea shoot. c Baby spinach
Classification results for coffee leaf
| Classification accuracy (%) | Time domain features (11), % | Frequency domain features (10), % | Time–frequency domain features (4), % |
|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | 92.6 | 93.0 | 91.6 |
| KNN | 90.0 | 91.8 | 89.4 |
| Decision tree | 91.2 | 90.7 | 91.2 |
Classification results for pea shoot leaf
| Classification accuracy (%) | Time domain features (11), % | Frequency domain features (10), % | Time–frequency domain features (4), % |
|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | 86.6 | 79.2 | 80.6 |
| KNN | 79.0 | 78.8 | 81.4 |
| Decision tree | 81.2 | 81.7 | 82.2 |
Classification results for baby spinach leaf
| Classification accuracy (%) | Time domain features (11), % | Frequency domain features (10), % | Time–frequency domain features (4), % |
|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | 82.6 | 81.1 | 84.6 |
| KNN | 81.0 | 78.8 | 81.4 |
| Decision Tree | 78.2 | 79.7 | 82.2 |
Classification results of hybrid combination features for all leaves
| Classification accuracy of three leaves | SVM, % | KNN, % | D-Tree, % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coffee | 94.46 | 93.76 | 91.15 |
| Pea shoot | 93.42 | 91.62 | 90.64 |
| Baby spinach | 91.13 | 90.38 | 89.01 |
Fig. 6Classification performance of classifiers using feature selection technique SFS for coffee, pea shoot and baby spinach leaves
Classification performance for coffee leaf by applying tenfold validation using proposed algorithm with selected features
| Feature selection methods | Classifiers | Serial num. of features | Total no of features | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SFS | SVM | 24 | 1–19, 21–25 | 98.5 |
| KNN | 22 | 1–6, 8–11, 13–21, 23–25 | 97.2 | |
| D-Tree | 24 | 1–23, 24 | 96.5 | |
| SBS | SVM | 24 | 1–19, 21–25 | 98.6 |
| KNN | 24 | 1–21, 23–25 | 97.6 | |
| D-Tree | 24 | 1–23, 25 | 96.2 | |
| Relief-F | SVM | 10 | 2, 4, 10, 11, 17–21, 25 | 97.1 |
| KNN | 95.9 | |||
| D-Tree | 96.8 |
Classification performance for pea shoot leaf by applying tenfold validation using proposed algorithm with selected features
| Feature selection methods | Classifiers | Serial num. of features | No of selected features | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SFS | SVM | 18 | 1–6, 8–14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 25 | 97.2 |
| KNN | 13 | 1–5, 9–11, 18–20, 23, 25 | 94.4 | |
| D-Tree | 7 | 2, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19 | 93.1 | |
| SBS | SVM | 3 | 13, 19, 22 | 96.8 |
| KNN | 5 | 7, 12, 17, 19, 20 | 94.9 | |
| D-Tree | 2 | 8, 20 | 92.3 | |
| Relief-F | SVM | 12 | 2, 4, 10, 11, 17–21, 23–25 | 98.6 |
| KNN | 99.1 | |||
| D-Tree | 95.5 |
Classification performance for baby spinach by applying tenfold validation using proposed algorithm with selected features
| Feature selection methods | Classifiers | Serial num. of features | Total no of features | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SFS | SVM | 24 | 1–12, 14–25 | 97.9 |
| KNN | 23 | 1–14, 17–25 | 96.4 | |
| D-Tree | 5 | 3, 5, 17, 20, 21 | 96.1 | |
| SBS | SVM | 23 | 1–11, 13, 15–25 | 96.8 |
| KNN | 24 | 1–13, 15–25 | 94.5 | |
| D-Tree | 5 | 7, 8, 9, 11, 15 | 93.2 | |
| Relief-F | SVM | 17 | 2, 4–7, 10, 11, 15–21, 23–25 | 98.6 |
| KNN | 99.1 | |||
| D-Tree | 95.5 |
Classification performance of all classifiers by applying tenfold validation using proposed algorithms with selected features
| Feature types and feature selection methods | Computation time (s) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | KNN | Decision tree | |
| Coffee leaf | |||
| Extracted features | 0.7282 | 0.5309 | 0.4021 |
| Selected features | |||
| SFS | 0.5706 | 0.4123 | 0.3371 |
| SBS | 0.6456 | 0.4240 | 0.3202 |
| Relief-F | 0.6252 | 0.4842 | 0.3582 |
| Baby spinach leaf | |||
| Extracted features | 0.8975 | 0.4265 | 0.4053 |
| Selected features | |||
| SFS | 0.6062 | 0.4128 | 0.1071 |
| SBS | 0.4259 | 0.3576 | 0.3247 |
| Relief-F | 0.4485 | 0.3875 | 0.3490 |
| Peashoot leaf | |||
| Extracted features | 0.6825 | 0.4405 | 0.4196 |
| Selected features | |||
| SFS | 0.4699 | 0.3404 | 0.3343 |
| SBS | 0.6504 | 0.1734 | 0.3149 |
| Relief-F | 0.5088 | 0.3766 | 0.3759 |
Classification performance of all classifiers by applying leave-one-observation-cross-validation techniques with selected features
| Quality metrics | Water content (%) | SVM | KNN | D-Tree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coffee leaf | ||||
| Day 1 | 82.84 | |||
| SENS | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| SPEC | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Day 2 | 41.22 | |||
| SENS | 1 | 0.929 | 0.976 | |
| SPEC | 0.988 | 0.965 | 1 | |
| Day 3 | 12.34 | |||
| SENS | 0.963 | 0.889 | 1 | |
| SPEC | 1 | 0.912 | 0.99 | |
| Day 4 | 0.51 | |||
| SENS | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| SPEC | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Peashoot | ||||
| Day 1 | 76.84 | |||
| SENS | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| SPEC | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Day 2 | 49.22 | |||
| SENS | 1 | 0.892 | 1 | |
| SPEC | 0.962 | 0.982 | 0.971 | |
| Day 3 | 18.91 | |||
| SENS | 0.545 | 0.727 | 0.636 | |
| SPEC | 0.984 | 0.967 | 0.984 | |
| Day 4 | 0.21 | |||
| SENS | 0.919 | 0.85 | 0.833 | |
| SPEC | 0.987 | 0.85 | 0.933 | |
| Spinach | ||||
| Day1 | 71.14 | |||
| SENS | 0.995 | 1 | 1 | |
| SPEC | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Day2 | 34.22 | |||
| SENS | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| SPEC | 0.976 | 1 | 1 | |
| Day3 | 10.34 | |||
| SENS | 0.909 | 0.545 | 0.851 | |
| SPEC | 0.923 | 0.949 | 0.897 | |
| Day4 | 0.10 | |||
| SENS | 0.727 | 0.818 | 0.636 | |
| SPEC | 0.974 | 0.872 | 0.949 | |
The confusion accuracy with leave-one-observations-out cross-validation method of all leaves for each day along with monitoring the water content values for each day
| Samples | Classes | Classifiers test accuracy performance (%) | Water content (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | KNN | D-Tree | |||
| Coffee leaf | Day1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 82.84 |
| Day2 | 95.2 | 88.1 | 100 | 41.22 | |
| Day3 | 100 | 92.6 | 92.3 | 12.34 | |
| Day4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0.71 | |
| Variance | 0.58 | 1.09 | 0.92 | ||
| Peashoot leaf | Day1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 76.84 |
| Day2 | 100 | 87.5 | 87.5 | 49.22 | |
| Day3 | 93.6 | 78.4 | 74.2 | 18.91 | |
| Day4 | 95.0 | 89.3 | 91.7 | 0.21 | |
| Variance | 1.55 | 2.27 | 3.60 | ||
| Baby spinach leaf | Day1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 71.14 |
| Day2 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 34.22 | |
| Day3 | 92.6 | 88.6 | 75.5 | 10.34 | |
| Day4 | 94.7 | 89.7 | 91.3 | 0.10 | |
| Variance | 1.76 | 2.90 | 4.60 | ||