| Literature DB >> 35270260 |
Yu Zhang1, Meiling Liu1, Li Kong2, Tao Peng1, Dong Xie1, Li Zhang1, Lingwen Tian1, Xinyu Zou1.
Abstract
Heavy metal stress, which is a serious environmental problem, affects both animal and human health through the food chain. However, such subtle stress information is difficult to detect in remote sensing images. Therefore, enhancing the stress signal is key to accurately identifying heavy metal contamination in crops. The aim of this study was to identify heavy metal stress in rice at a regional scale by mining the time-series characteristics of rice growth under heavy metal stress using the gated recurrent unit (GRU) algorithm. The experimental area was located in Zhuzhou City, Hunan Province, China. We collected situ-measured data and Sentinel-2A images corresponding to the 2019-2021 period. First, the spatial distribution of the rice in the study area was extracted using the random forest algorithm based on the Sentinel 2 images. Second, the time-series characteristics were analyzed, sensitive parameters were selected, and a GRU classification model was constructed. Third, the model was used to identify the heavy metals in rice and then assess the accuracy of the classification results using performance metrics such as the accuracy rate, precision, recall rate (recall), and F1-score (F1-score). The results showed that the GRU model based on the time series of the red-edge location feature index has a good classification performance with an overall accuracy of 93.5% and a Kappa coefficient of 85.6%. This study shows that regional heavy metal stress in crops can be accurately detected using the GRU algorithm. A combination of spectrum and temporal information appears to be a promising method for monitoring crops under various types of stress.Entities:
Keywords: GRU model; heavy metal stress; red edge; remote sensing; time series
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35270260 PMCID: PMC8909516 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052567
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Location map for study areas in Zhuzhou, China.
Figure 2Flowchart of the GRU algorithm for the stress level monitoring of rice with heavy metal pollution.
Sensitive spectral parameters for monitoring heavy metal stress in rice.
| Bands | Formula | Description |
|---|---|---|
| REP | 700 + 40 * (((B7 − B4)/2 − B5)/(B6 − B5)) | Red-edge position |
|
| (B7/B5) − 1 | Red-edge chlorophyll index |
| MSR | (B6 − B1)/(B5 − B1) | Modified simple ratio |
| MCARI | ((B5 − B4) − 0.2 * (B5 − B3)) * (B5/B4) | Modified chlorophyll Absorption ratio index |
| NDVI | (B8 − B4)/(B8 + B4) | Normalized difference Vegetation index |
| RDVI | Renormalized difference Vegetation index | |
| NDRE1 | (B6 − B5)/(B6 + B5) | Normalized difference |
| NDRE2 | (B7 − B5)/(B7 + B5) | Normalized difference |
Figure 3Temporal characteristics of stress signal from a single rice pixel under different stress types.
Figure 4Schematic of GRU model.
Setting of GRU parameters.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Input_size | 8 |
| Hidden_size | 256 |
| Batch_size | 8 |
| Learning_rate | 0.0001 |
where Input_size is the dimension of the input data, which represents the length of the feature vector; Hidden_size is the dimension of the hidden layer, which characterizes the number of nodes in each layer of the neural network, Batch_size is the number of sequence segment batches used for training, and Learning_rate is the hyperparameter that determines the training convergence speed.
Figure 5Spatial distribution of rice in the 2019–2021 period.
Figure 6Accuracy and loss curves of the model (a): Overall Loss curve of the model. (b): Overall training and testing accuracy of the model. (c): Training and testing accuracy of non-heavy metal samples. (d): Training and testing accuracy of heavy metal samples.
Figure 7Spatial distribution of heavy metal-stressed rice from 2019 to 2021.
Figure 8Classification accuracy in 2019.
Classification accuracy evaluation in 2020.
| Classified | Reference | Total | User’s Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonheavy Metal | Heavy Metal | |||
| Nonheavy metal | 291 | 31 | 322 | 90.37% |
| Heavy metal | 44 | 629 | 673 | 93.46% |
| Total | 335 | 660 | 995 | — |
| Producer’s Accuracy | 86.87% | 95.30% | — | — |
| Overall Accuracy 92.46% | Kappa 82.96% | |||
Classification accuracy evaluation in 2021.
| Classified | Reference | Total | User’s Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonheavy Metal | Heavy Metal | |||
| Nonheavy metal | 182 | 43 | 225 | 80.89% |
| Heavy metal | 32 | 597 | 629 | 94.91% |
| Total | 214 | 640 | 854 | — |
| Producer’s accuracy | 85.05% | 93.28% | — | — |
| Overall accuracy 91.22% | Kappa 77.01% | |||
Figure 9Distribution and heat map of abandoned mines in Zhuzhou.