| Literature DB >> 32708130 |
Yuhua Li1, Zhihui Luo1, Fengjie Wang1, Yingxu Wang1.
Abstract
Collaborative representation (CR)-based classification has been successfully applied to plant disease recognition in cases with sufficient training samples of each disease. However, collecting enough training samples is usually time consuming and labor-intensive. Moreover, influenced by the non-ideal measurement environment, samples may be corrupted by variables introduced by bad illumination and occlusions of adjacent leaves. Consequently, an extended collaborative representation (ECR)-based classification model is presented in this paper. Then, it is applied to cucumber leaf disease recognition, which constructs a pure spectral library consisting of several representative samples for each disease and designs a universal variation spectral library that deals with linear variables superimposed on samples. Thus, each query sample is encoded as a linear combination of atoms from these two spectral libraries and disease identity is determined by the disease of minimal reconstruction residuals. Experiments are conducted on spectral curves extracted from normal leaves and the disease lesions of leaves infected with cucumber anthracnose and brown spot. The diagnostic accuracy is higher than 94.7% and the average online diagnosis time is short, about 1 to 1.3 ms. The results indicate that the ECR-based classification model is feasible in the fast and accurate diagnosis of cucumber leaf diseases.Entities:
Keywords: cucumber disease recognition; extended collaborative representation (ECR); hyperspectral imaging; spectral library
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32708130 PMCID: PMC7412535 DOI: 10.3390/s20144045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the hyperspectral image acquisition system.
A brief description of the groups.
| Groups | Disease Type | Number of Plants | Number of Spectral Curves |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Healthy | 5 | 4000 |
| B | Corynespora cassiicola | 25 | 4000 |
| C | Anthracnose | 25 | 4000 |
Parameter settings for different preprocessing methods.
| Methods | Window Width | Polynomial Order | The Ideal Spectra |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAS | 7 | / | / |
| SG | 7 | 3 | / |
| MSC | / | / | The mean of all spectral curves |
Figure 2The flowchart for cucumber disease recognition using the ECR-based classification model.
Figure 3Spectral curve samples preprocessed by different methods. (a) Example of the spectral curve samples of anthracnose; (b) MSC; (c) SNV; (d) MAS; (e) SG.
Cucumber disease recognition accuracies under different preprocessing methods.
| Methods | SG | MAS | SNV | MSC | SG-1st Der | SG-2nd Der |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESRC | 92.08% | 92.65% | 69.99% | 61.92% | 82.94% | 93.25% |
| SVM | 92.95% | 95.53% | 82.61% | 63.01% | 90.46% | 92.75% |
| LDA | 89.02% | 91.10% | 70.12% | 47.50% | 82.36% | 88.22% |
| K-means | 93.74% | 92.61% | 73.90% | 64.30% | 90.82% | 91.21% |
| ECR | 95.48% | 96.02% | 63.70% | 71.59% | 89.37% | 94.53% |
The results of ECR-based disease recognition method under different window widths.
|
| 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 |
|
| 94% | 95.7% | 96% | 95.7% | 94.6% |
Disease recognition accuracies via different number of principal components.
| Methods | Number of Principal Components | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 25 | 50 | 75 | 100 | 125 | 150 | |
| ESRC | 87.7% | 93.6% | 93.2% | 89.6% | 93.9% | 93.7% | 93.4% | 92.7% | 94.0% | 93.5% |
| SVM | 94.3% | 93.8% | 91.9% | 94.1% | 95.0% | 93.9% | 56.9% | 57.4% | 56.4% | 57.2% |
| LDA | 83.9% | 77.5% | 81.8% | 77.6% | 90.1% | 92.8% | 93.3% | 93.3% | 89.1% | 78.6% |
| K-means | 93.4% | 93.6% | 93.7% | 93.7% | 93.7% | 93.3% | 93.6% | 93.7% | 93.8% | 93.7% |
| RF | 92.9% | 94.9% | 95.1% | 95.6% | 94.8% | 94.7% | 89.1% | 92.1% | 83.3% | 88.6% |
| ECR | 80.7% | 95.8% | 96.5% | 96.7% | 97.1% | 96.2% | 95.8% | 94.7% | 96.6% | 96.6% |
Figure 4Comparison results of the ECR method with and without variation spectral library.
Disease recognition accuracies when different enrollment size is adopted.
| Methods | Enrollment Size | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | 90 | 100 | |
| ESRC | 94.5% | 94.6% | 95.4% | 94.4% | 95.5% | 94.9% | 94.8% | 94.5% | 94.9% |
| SVM | 65.6% | 70.3% | 73.5% | 81.3% | 87.7% | 93.2% | 96.8% | 96.8% | 97.7% |
| LDA | 70.9% | 75.6% | 76.4% | 78.1% | 80.4% | 82.1% | 83.4% | 82.6% | 83.8% |
| K-means | 93.7% | 93.7% | 93.7% | 93.6% | 93.6% | 93.6% | 93.6% | 93.7% | 93.7% |
| ECR | 97.6% | 97.1% | 98.1% | 97.6% | 97.4% | 97.7% | 98.3% | 98.2% | 98.5% |
The average online diagnostic time (ms) of each query sample with respect to different recognition methods.
| Methods | Enrollment Size | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | 90 | 100 | |
| ESRC | 2.49 | 3.24 | 3.65 | 4.26 | 4.45 | 4.81 | 5.05 | 5.67 | 5.77 | 6.53 |
| SVM | 2.75 | 2.69 | 2.69 | 2.80 | 2.72 | 2.77 | 2.88 | 2.73 | 2.87 | 3.00 |
| LDA | 1.01 | 1.01 | 1.03 | 1.05 | 1.01 | 1.07 | 1.02 | 1.02 | 1.15 | 1.17 |
| K-means | 1.04 | 1.04 | 1.04 | 1.09 | 1.04 | 1.09 | 1.04 | 1.04 | 1.18 | 1.19 |
| ECR | 0.99 | 1.04 | 1.05 | 1.09 | 1.04 | 1.11 | 1.07 | 1.06 | 1.19 | 1.22 |