| Literature DB >> 35161310 |
Armando Sterling1,2, Julio A Di Rienzo2.
Abstract
The efficiency of visible and near-infrared (VIS/NIR) sensors and predictive modeling for detecting and classifying South American Leaf Blight (SALB) (Pseudocercospora ulei) in rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis) has been poorly explored. Furthermore, the performance of VIS/NIR analysis combined with machine learning (ML) algorithms for predicting photosynthetic alterations caused by SALB is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to detect and classify the SALB levels, as well as to predict, for the first time, disease-induced photosynthetic changes in rubber trees. Leaf hyperspectral reflectance combined with five ML techniques (random forest (RF), boosted regression tree (BRT), bagged classification and regression trees (BCART), artificial neural network (ANN), and support vector machine (SVM)) were used. The RF, ANN, and BCART models achieved the best performance for classifying the SALB levels on the training dataset (accuracies of 98.0 to 99.8%), with 10-fold cross-validation repeated five times, and test dataset (accuracies of 97.1 to 100%). The ANN and RF models were better at predicting leaf gas exchange-related traits such as net CO2 assimilation rate (A) and extrinsic water use efficiency (WUEe) in the training (R2 ranged from 0.97 to 0.99) and testing (R2 ranged from 0.96 to 0.99) phases. In comparison, lower performances (R2 ranged from 0.24 to 0.52) were evidenced for the photochemical traits. This research provides a basis for future designs of a remote monitoring system based on early detection and accurate diagnosis of biotic stress caused by SALB, which is fundamental for more effective rubber crop protection.Entities:
Keywords: Hevea brasiliensis; Pseudocercospora ulei; disease detection; machine learning; photosynthesis prediction; precision crop protection; spectral reflectance
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161310 PMCID: PMC8840432 DOI: 10.3390/plants11030329
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Experimental conditions of the study. (a) Conditions-controlled room with Hevea brasiliensis plants, (b) healthy leaflets (0) in stage B at 0 days after inoculation (dai), (c) diseased leaflets in stage C with SALB severity class ‘4’ at 20 dai.
Detail of samples for each SALB severity class used for the photosynthetic and hyperspectral data analysis in Hevea brasiliensis.
| Severity Class | Severity Range | Inoculation | Days of Sampling a | Observed Cultivars | Number of Samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0% | Without | 0, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 | FX 3864, FX 4098 | 60 |
| With | 0 | FX 3864, FX 4098 | 10 | ||
| 1 | 0.2–5% | With | 4, 8, 12 and 16 | FX 3864, FX 4098 | 14 |
| 2 | 6–15% | With | 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 | FX 3864, FX 4098 | 25 |
| 3 | 18–20% | With | 8, 12, 16 and 20 | FX 3864 | 6 |
| 4 | 40–100% | With | 12, 16 and 20 | FX 3864 | 5 |
| Total | 120 |
a Days 0, 4, and 8, corresponded to B stage leaflets, and days 12, 16, and 20 to C stage leaflets.
Figure 2Flowchart of the general methodology followed in the research.
Mean values (±standard error) of nine photosynthetic traits for each SALB severity class in each leaf stage of Hevea brasiliensis: net CO2 assimilation rate (A) (µmol CO2 m−2 s−1), transpiration rate (E) (mmol H2O m−2 s−1), stomatal conductance to water vapor (g) (mol H2O m−2 s−1), water use efficiency extrinsic (WUEe) (µmol CO2 mmol H2O−1), the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (PSII) (F/F), efficiency of excitation energy capture by open PSII reaction centers (F/F), non-photochemical quenching coefficient (NPQ), electron transport rate (ETR), and photochemical quenching coefficient (qP).
| Severity Class | Leaf Stage |
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | B | −4.31 ± 0.33 | 0.63 ± 0.01 | 0.20 ± 0.01 | −7.08 ± 0.75 | 0.83 ± 0.00 |
| C | 2.99 ± 0.07 | 0.83 ± 0.02 | 0.38 ± 0.02 | 3.59 ± 0.07 | 0.83 ± 0.00 | |
| 1 | B | −6.76 ± 0.71 | 0.54 ± 0.03 | 0.17 ± 0.02 | −12.71 ± 1.43 | 0.82 ± 0.00 |
| C | 2.40 ± 0.25 | 0.63 ± 0.07 | 0.20 ± 0.08 | 3.72 ± 0.24 | 0.82 ± 0.02 | |
| 2 | B | −6.99 ± 0.89 | 0.54 ± 0.03 | 0.19 ± 0.03 | −13.98 ± 1.79 | 0.81 ± 0.01 |
| C | 2.75 ± 0.10 | 0.71 ± 0.02 | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 3.89 ± 0.10 | 0.81 ± 0.01 | |
| 3 | B | −11.90 ± 1.66 | 0.42 ± 0.06 | 0.15 ± 0.06 | −28.06 ± 3.36 | 0.75 ± 0.01 |
| C | 1.45 ± 0.21 | 0.44 ± 0.06 | 0.16 ± 0.07 | 3.23 ± 0.21 | 0.79 ± 0.02 | |
| 4 | B | - | - | - | - | - |
| C | 1.01 ± 0.19 | 0.37 ± 0.05 | 0.14 ± 0.06 | 2.51 ± 0.19 | 0.72 ± 0.02 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0 | B | 0.76 ± 0.00 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.00 | |
| C | 0.74 ± 0.00 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.29 ± 0.01 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | ||
| 1 | B | 0.75 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | |
| C | 0.75 ± 0.02 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.28 ± 0.06 | 0.10 ± 0.03 | ||
| 2 | B | 0.73 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.15 ± 0.04 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | |
| C | 0.71 ± 0.00 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.29 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | ||
| 3 | B | 0.52 ± 0.03 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.03 ± 0.07 | 0.01 ± 0.02 | |
| C | 0.71 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | ||
| 4 | B | - | - | - | - | |
| C | 0.70 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0.00 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 0.07 ± 0.02 |
- Does not apply (severity class not reported in the B stage leaflets).
Figure 3Spectral reflectance signatures of healthy leaflets (0) and SALB severity classes. Classes ‘0’, ‘1’, ‘2’, and ‘3’ corresponding to the mean of leaflets in stages B and C, and class ‘4’ to leaflets in stage C.
Figure 4SALB severity class separation using principal component analysis (PCA). The circle represents the 95% confidence ellipses and the major points represent the centroids of each class. PC 1 and PC 2 (Principal component 1and 2, respectively).
Figure 5Factor loadings plots of the PCA (PC1, blue curve, and PC2, red curve) under different SALB severity classes.
Results of five models used to classify different SALB severity classes in the training and testing phases.
| Model | Training | Testing | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | Kappa Coefficient | Accuracy (%) | Kappa Coefficient | |
| RF | 99.8 | 0.99 | 97.1 | 0.95 |
| BRT | 95.6 | 0.93 | 94.1 | 0.89 |
| BCART | 98.0 | 0.97 | 97.1 | 0.95 |
| ANN | 98.1 | 0.97 | 100.0 | 1.00 |
| SVM | 96.7 | 0.95 | 100.0 | 1.00 |
RF, random forest; BRT, boosted regression tree; BCART, bagged carts; ANN, artificial neural Network; SVM, support vector machine.
Statistics by class of five models are used to classify different SALB severity classes in the testing phase.
| Model | Severity Class | Sensitivity | Specificity | Positive Predictive Value | Negative Predictive | Balance Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF | 0 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 |
| 1 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 87.5 | |
| 2 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.88 | 1.00 | 98.1 | |
| 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 | |
| 4 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 | |
| BRT | 0 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 |
| 1 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 87.5 | |
| 2 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.88 | 1.00 | 98.1 | |
| 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 | |
| 4 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 98.4 | |
| BCART | 0 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 |
| 1 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 87.5 | |
| 2 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.88 | 1.00 | 98.1 | |
| 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 | |
| 4 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 | |
| ANN | 0 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 |
| 1 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 | |
| 2 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 | |
| 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 | |
| 4 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 | |
| SVM | 0 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 |
| 1 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 | |
| 2 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 | |
| 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 | |
| 4 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 100.0 |
RF, random forest; BRT, boosted regression tree; BCART, bagged carts; ANN, artificial neural Network; SVM, support vector machine.
Results of five models used to predict nine photosynthetic traits of Hevea brasiliensis: net CO2 assimilation rate (A) (µmol CO2 m−2 s−1), transpiration rate (E) (mmol H2O m−2 s−1), stomatal conductance to water vapor (gs) (mol H2O m−2 s−1), water use efficiency extrinsic (WUE) (µmol CO2 mmol H2O−1), the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (PSII) (F/F), efficiency of excitation energy capture by open PSII reaction centers (F/F), non-photochemical quenching coefficient (NPQ), electron transport rate (ETR), and photochemical quenching coefficient (qP).
| Trait | Model | Training | Testing | Trait | Model | Training | Testing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSE | R2 | RMSE | R2 | RMSE | R2 | RMSE | R2 | ||||
|
| RF | 0.672 | 0.98 | 0.407 | 0.99 | RF | 0.042 | 0.52 | 0.047 | 0.14 | |
| BRT | 0.539 | 0.99 | 0.716 | 0.98 | BRT | 0.046 | 0.43 | 0.045 | 0.19 | ||
| BCART | 1.505 | 0.90 | 0.956 | 0.96 | BCART | 0.046 | 0.41 | 0.045 | 0.15 | ||
| ANN | 0.422 | 0.99 | 0.566 | 0.99 | ANN | 0.050 | 0.38 | 0.039 | 0.28 | ||
| SVM | 0.627 | 0.98 | 0.893 | 0.97 | SVM | 0.045 | 0.42 | 0.042 | 0.20 | ||
|
| RF | 0.076 | 0.78 | 0.083 | 0.82 | NPQ | RF | 0.010 | 0.35 | 0.011 | 0.29 |
| BRT | 0.076 | 0.78 | 0.086 | 0.78 | BRT | 0.010 | 0.37 | 0.013 | 0.24 | ||
| BCART | 0.089 | 0.72 | 0.104 | 0.72 | BCART | 0.011 | 0.24 | 0.012 | 0.18 | ||
| ANN | 0.082 | 0.73 | 0.097 | 0.76 | ANN | 0.010 | 0.29 | 0.015 | 0.16 | ||
| SVM | 0.071 | 0.80 | 0.067 | 0.89 | SVM | 0.010 | 0.28 | 0.013 | 0.20 | ||
|
| RF | 0.061 | 0.85 | 0.045 | 0.81 | ETR | RF | 0.095 | 0.48 | 0.091 | 0.39 |
| BRT | 0.064 | 0.82 | 0.053 | 0.75 | BRT | 0.095 | 0.47 | 0.116 | 0.40 | ||
| BCART | 0.070 | 0.80 | 0.046 | 0.80 | BCART | 0.105 | 0.34 | 0.100 | 0.25 | ||
| ANN | 0.062 | 0.86 | 0.049 | 0.80 | ANN | 0.106 | 0.30 | 0.099 | 0.27 | ||
| SVM | 0.057 | 0.88 | 0.046 | 0.79 | SVM | 0.098 | 0.43 | 0.113 | 0.42 | ||
|
| RF | 1.571 | 0.97 | 1.620 | 0.97 |
| RF | 0.037 | 0.46 | 0.042 | 0.74 |
| BRT | 1.214 | 0.98 | 2.500 | 0.92 | BRT | 0.037 | 0.39 | 0.054 | 0.60 | ||
| BCART | 3.179 | 0.87 | 2.367 | 0.92 | BCART | 0.037 | 0.39 | 0.058 | 0.38 | ||
| ANN | 1.274 | 0.98 | 1.839 | 0.96 | ANN | 0.038 | 0.33 | 0.061 | 0.32 | ||
| SVM | 1.467 | 0.97 | 2.091 | 0.90 | SVM | 0.039 | 0.37 | 0.042 | 0.73 | ||
| RF | 0.034 | 0.43 | 0.033 | 0.38 | |||||||
| BRT | 0.036 | 0.36 | 0.033 | 0.33 | |||||||
| BCART | 0.037 | 0.33 | 0.032 | 0.37 | |||||||
| ANN | 0.035 | 0.42 | 0.042 | 0.30 | |||||||
| SVM | 0.035 | 0.34 | 0.033 | 0.43 | |||||||
RF, random forest; BRT, boosted regression tree; BCART, bagged carts; ANN, artificial neural network; SVM, support vector machine; RMSE, root-mean-square error; R2, determination coefficient.