| Literature DB >> 35009575 |
Ziheng Feng1,2, Li Song1, Jianzhao Duan1, Li He1, Yanyan Zhang1, Yongkang Wei1, Wei Feng1.
Abstract
Powdery mildew severely affects wheat growth and yield; therefore, its effective monitoring is essential for the prevention and control of the disease and global food security. In the present study, a spectroradiometer and thermal infrared cameras were used to obtain hyperspectral signature and thermal infrared images data, and thermal infrared temperature parameters (TP) and texture features (TF) were extracted from the thermal infrared images and RGB images of wheat with powdery mildew, during the wheat flowering and filling periods. Based on the ten vegetation indices from the hyperspectral data (VI), TF and TP were integrated, and partial least square regression, random forest regression (RFR), and support vector machine regression (SVR) algorithms were used to construct a prediction model for a wheat powdery mildew disease index. According to the results, the prediction accuracy of RFR was higher than in other models, under both single data source modeling and multi-source data modeling; among the three data sources, VI was the most suitable for powdery mildew monitoring, followed by TP, and finally TF. The RFR model had stable performance in multi-source data fusion modeling (VI&TP&TF), and had the optimal estimation performance with 0.872 and 0.862 of R2 for calibration and validation, respectively. The application of multi-source data collaborative modeling could improve the accuracy of remote sensing monitoring of wheat powdery mildew, and facilitate the achievement of high-precision remote sensing monitoring of crop disease status.Entities:
Keywords: information fusion; machine learning; remote sensing monitoring; wheat powdery mildew
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35009575 PMCID: PMC8747141 DOI: 10.3390/s22010031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Wheat canopy RGB image (a) and thermal infrared image (b) obtained using thermal infrared camera.
Spectral vegetation indices.
| Vegetation Index | Formula | References |
|---|---|---|
| Modified simple ration (MSR) |
| [ |
| Photochemical reflectance index (PRI) |
| [ |
| Physiological reflectance index (PHRI) |
| [ |
| Transformed chlorophyll absorption in reflectance index (TCARI) |
| [ |
| Red-edge vegetation stress index (RVSI) |
| [ |
| Structural independent pigment index (SIPI) |
| [ |
| Visible atmospherically resistant index (VARI) |
| [ |
| Renormalized difference vegetation index (RDVI) |
| [ |
| Anthocyanin reflectance index (ARI) |
| [ |
| Damage sensitive spectral index 2 (DSSI2) |
| [ |
| Greenness index (GI) |
| [ |
| Plant senescence reflectance index (PSRI) |
| [ |
| Normalized pigment chlorophyll |
| [ |
| Nitrogen reflectance index (NRI) |
| [ |
| Healthy index (HI) |
| [ |
| Powdery mildew index (PMI) |
| [ |
| Triangular vegetation index (TVI) |
| [ |
| Green normalized difference vegetation index (GNDVI) |
| [ |
| Nir shoulder region index (NSRI) |
| [ |
| Soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI) |
| [ |
Figure 2Eight texture feature maps of gray-level co-occurrence matrix from RGB image of wheat canopy in the 0° direction.
Texture feature calculation formula.
| Texture | Equation | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Mean, MEA |
| Reflects the average of the greyscale |
| Variance, VAR |
| Reflects the magnitude of grey scale variation |
| Homogeneity, HOM |
| Reflects the roughness of image texture |
| Contrast, CON |
| Reflects the local variations in the gray-level co-occurrence matrix |
| Dissimilarity, DIS |
| Same as contrast, used to detect similarity |
| Entropy, ENT |
| Reflects the degree of the gray distribution and the thickness of the texture |
| Second moment, SEM |
| Reflects the homogeneity of an image’s distribution of greyscale |
| Correlation, COR |
| Reflects the length of the extension of a certain grey value in a certain direction |
Note: and indicate the row and column number of the images, respectively; is the relative frequency of two neighboring pixels.
Figure 3A workflow diagram of feature extraction and modeling.
Figure 4Spectral reflectance changes (a) of wheat canopy and its correlation (b) with disease index.
Figure 5Root mean square error (a) in the optimal variables selected using successive projections algorithm (SPA) and correlation (b) between vegetation index (VI) and disease index (DI).
Figure 6Linear relationship of the optimal vegetation indices with wheat disease index (DI).
Figure 7Correlation (a) between texture feature parameter and disease index (DI) and the root mean square error (b) for the optimal variables selected using SPA.
Figure 8Correlation coefficient between temperature parameters and DI.
Estimation performance of single data source model based on different algorithms.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| VI | 10 | PLSR | 0.666 | 15.014 | 19.24% | 0.650 | 16.425 | 19.86% |
| SVR | 0.670 | 14.757 | 18.69% | 0.666 | 15.578 | 19.28% | ||
| RFR | 0.690 | 14.488 | 18.42% | 0.680 | 14.298 | 18.16% | ||
| TF | 5 | PLSR | 0.509 | 17.852 | 32.03% | 0.486 | 18.367 | 32.05% |
| SVR | 0.517 | 18.616 | 30.70% | 0.514 | 17.489 | 30.23% | ||
| RFR | 0.537 | 17.621 | 29.18% | 0.537 | 17.799 | 27.95% | ||
| TP | 2 | PLSR | 0.553 | 17.420 | 29.27% | 0.546 | 17.673 | 29.66% |
| SVR | 0.567 | 17.347 | 28.96% | 0.571 | 17.094 | 27.13% | ||
| RFR | 0.575 | 16.470 | 27.83% | 0.577 | 16.791 | 27.79% | ||
Figure 9Prediction performance of different models with various input feature types.
Estimation performance of multi-source collaboration models based on different algorithms.
| Independent Variable Type | Number of Variables | Modeling Method | Calibration Set | Validation Set | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | RMSE | RE | R2 | RMSE | RE | |||
| TP&TF | 7 | PLSR | 0.624 | 16.265 | 21.67% | 0.623 | 16.151 | 22.67% |
| SVR | 0.641 | 15.413 | 20.39% | 0.637 | 15.900 | 20.91% | ||
| RFR | 0.646 | 15.328 | 20.29% | 0.641 | 15.687 | 20.77% | ||
| VI&TF | 15 | PLSR | 0.723 | 13.417 | 18.37% | 0.728 | 13.236 | 18.15% |
| SVR | 0.744 | 13.211 | 17.33% | 0.738 | 13.107 | 17.27% | ||
| RFR | 0.762 | 12.102 | 17.02% | 0.761 | 12.203 | 17.71% | ||
| VI&TP | 12 | PLSR | 0.763 | 13.385 | 16.08% | 0.746 | 13.375 | 16.20% |
| SVR | 0.784 | 12.554 | 15.43% | 0.776 | 12.221 | 15.59% | ||
| RFR | 0.791 | 12.531 | 15.51% | 0.794 | 11.804 | 15.07% | ||
| VI&TP&TF | 17 | PLSR | 0.840 | 11.606 | 14.07% | 0.831 | 10.947 | 14.09% |
| SVR | 0.857 | 11.277 | 13.66% | 0.854 | 10.200 | 13.07% | ||
| RFR | 0.872 | 10.108 | 12.54% | 0.862 | 10.049 | 12.31% | ||
Figure 10Comparison of three data source fusion models based on (a) PLSR, (b) SVR and (c) RFR algorithm.