| Literature DB >> 35585547 |
YiFei Cao1, Huanliang Xu2, Jin Song1, Yao Yang2, Xiaohui Hu3, Korohou Tchalla Wiyao1, Zhaoyu Zhai4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The chlorophyll content is a vital indicator for reflecting the photosynthesis ability of plants and it plays a significant role in monitoring the general health of plants. Since the chlorophyll content and the soil-plant analysis development (SPAD) value are positively correlated, it is feasible to predict the SPAD value by calculating the vegetation indices (VIs) through hyperspectral images, thereby evaluating the severity of plant diseases. However, current indices simply adopt few wavelengths of the hyperspectral information, which may decrease the prediction accuracy. Besides, few researches explored the applicability of VIs over rice under the bacterial blight disease stress.Entities:
Keywords: Disease stress; Fractal dimension; Hyperspectral; Rice; SPAD value; Vegetation index
Year: 2022 PMID: 35585547 PMCID: PMC9118648 DOI: 10.1186/s13007-022-00898-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Methods ISSN: 1746-4811 Impact factor: 5.827
Fig. 1Workflow of predicting the SPAD value of rice leaves under BB disease stress
Fig. 2Display diagram of the hyperspectral imaging system
Categorization standard of rice leaves under the bacterial blight disease
| Disease level | Symptoms |
|---|---|
| Level 0 | No clear spot is shown |
| Level 1 | It appears 2–3 cm white spots, or even few brown spots are shown. The spot area is account for 10% of the leaf |
| Level 2 | The length of appeared spots is less than a quarter of the leaf’s length, or the spot area is account for 20% of the leaf |
| Level 3 | The length of appeared spots is between a quarter and half of the leaf’s length, or the spot area is account for 20–49% of the leaf |
| Level 4 | The length of appeared spots is between a half and three quarters of the leaf’s length, or the spot area is account for 50–74% of the leaf |
| Level 5 | The length of appeared spots reaches beyond three quarters of the leaf’s length, or the spot area is account for more than 75% of the leaf |
Fig. 3Leaves under different disease levels
Fig. 4ROI selection diagram. The size of the ROI is 50 × 50 pixels
Fig. 5Flow chart of computing the spectral fractal dimension index
Fig. 6Measurement of the hyperspectral curve length by radius iteration. a Measurement with the initial radius r1. b Measurement with iterated radius rj. c Measurement the last radius rM. After initialization, the radius keeps being updated according to Eq. (5) during iteration. The termination condition is determined by Eq. (7)
Definition of current VIs
| VIs | Definition or equation | References |
|---|---|---|
| GNDVI | [ | |
| MCARI | ||
| PSRI | [ | |
| VOG1 | [ | |
| VOG2 | ||
| VOG3 | ||
| MSAVI | [ | |
| NDVI | [ | |
| PRI | ||
| NPCI | [ | |
| MTCI | [ | |
| RVI | [ | |
| NDI | [ | |
| SAVI | [ | |
| VARIgreen | [ | |
| VARIred |
: spectral reflection intensity at 800 nm, the same goes for , , , and so on
: mean reflection intensity between 760 and 850 nm
: mean reflection intensity between 650 and 670 nm
Fig. 7Mean hyperspectral curves of ROI from a single leave under six disease levels. For illustrating the changes of the hyperspectral reflectance, we monitored the reflectance of a single leaf after infection (when the severity is Level 0). The severity of the bacterial blight disease develops with time, until it reaches to Level 5
Statistical data of SFDI under different disease levels
| Disease level | Mean | Maximum | Minimum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 0 | 1.1807 | 1.2042 | 1.1372 |
| Level 1 | 1.2190 | 1.2408 | 1.1975 |
| Level 2 | 1.2595 | 1.2895 | 1.2401 |
| Level 3 | 1.2779 | 1.3036 | 1.2483 |
| Level 4 | 1.3199 | 1.4126 | 1.2627 |
| Level 5 | 1.3962 | 1.5040 | 1.3595 |
Fig. 8SPAD value of rice leaves under different disease levels. The top and bottom black lines represent the maximum and minimum SPAD values, respectively. The red line represents the average SPAD value. The number of rice leaves under disease levels 0 to 5 is 200, 170, 160, 200, 140, and 130, respectively
Fig. 9Contour maps of the coefficients of determination for the relationship between hyperspectral bands and SPAD values under six disease levels. In the color bar, the color changed with the correlation, from 0 to 1, meaning the stronger the positive correlation between the SPAD value and the spectral band. And from 0 to − 1, meaning the stronger the negative correlation between the SPAD value and the spectral band
Correlations between SPAD value and VIs
| VIs | Correlation coefficient |
|---|---|
| SFDI | 0.8263** |
| MSAVI | 0.8024** |
| RVI | 0.7947** |
| VARIred | 0.7235** |
| NPCI | 0.6426* |
| NDVI | 0.5545** |
| SAVI | 0.4989* |
| GNDVI | 0.4559* |
| VOG3 | 0.3125** |
| VOG1 | − 0.2692** |
| NDI | − 0.3752** |
| VOG2 | − 0.4041** |
| PSRI | − 0.4591* |
| PRI | − 0.4779** |
| VARIgreen | − 0.5852** |
| MTCI | − 0.7541** |
| MCARI | − 0.7578** |
* and ** indicate that correlations are significant at confidence levels of 0.05 and 0.01, respectively
Performance of prediction models built with different VIs
| VIs | Model | Training set | Test set | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | RMSE | RE/% | R2 | RMSE | RE/% | ||
| MSAVI | DT | 0.8153 | 4.2358 | 9.3182 | 0.7916 | 4.7874 | 9.5617 |
| PLSR | 0.8019 | 5.2545 | 10.2113 | 0.7711 | 5.3593 | 10.3156 | |
| SVR | 0.8553 | 4.0548 | 8.3935 | 0.8355 | 4.5187 | 9.3219 | |
| BPNN | 0.8437 | 3.2254 | 8.7417 | 0.8322 | 3.3290 | 10.8533 | |
| MCARI | DT | 0.7215 | 8.3541 | 14.0523 | 0.7006 | 9.2147 | 15.3319 |
| PLSR | 0.6853 | 7.4097 | 11.0561 | 0.6631 | 10.2416 | 12.1102 | |
| SVR | 0.7783 | 6.8345 | 9.7764 | 0.7547 | 10.9724 | 9.1542 | |
| BPNN | 0.7512 | 6.7714 | 10.2314 | 0.7431 | 9.2433 | 10.2011 | |
| MTCI | DT | 0.5839 | 10.9318 | 20.2176 | 0.5581 | 18.5998 | 20.3154 |
| PLSR | 0.6337 | 13.4315 | 17.7154 | 0.6255 | 14.3392 | 18.6833 | |
| SVR | 0.6239 | 8.3549 | 13.1171 | 0.6213 | 10.4582 | 14.6914 | |
| BPNN | 0.6617 | 7.9018 | 12.1272 | 0.6571 | 9.8851 | 13.2387 | |
| RVI | DT | 0.5311 | 12.2155 | 19.2513 | 0.4924 | 13.5217 | 19.7315 |
| PLSR | 0.5442 | 11.5125 | 18.2651 | 0.5351 | 12.3652 | 18.9113 | |
| SVR | 0.5537 | 9.2254 | 13.7114 | 0.5463 | 10.3290 | 13.8151 | |
| BPNN | 0.5329 | 8.7592 | 14.2615 | 0.5154 | 9.3651 | 14.3216 | |
| VARIred | DT | 0.7419 | 9.8263 | 10.2344 | 0.7224 | 10.2355 | 12.9371 |
| PLSR | 0.7133 | 12.3652 | 14.2615 | 0.7062 | 13.6239 | 16.3117 | |
| SVR | 0.7939 | 11.9217 | 10.0200 | 0.7819 | 12.9759 | 13.8592 | |
| BPNN | 0.7785 | 8.8251 | 9.3154 | 0.7435 | 10.9472 | 9.8138 | |
| SFDI | DT | 0.8413 | 4.5163 | 10.5127 | 0.8387 | 4.7184 | 10.6479 |
| PLSR | 0.8516 | 3.8715 | 9.8435 | 0.8479 | 4.5526 | 9.9316 | |
| SVR | 0.8874 | 3.5124 | 7.7451 | ||||
| BPNN | 0.8759 | 3.3152 | 8.3218 | 0.8679 | 3.6780 | 8.6153 | |
The bold values highlight the best performance
Fig. 10Prediction results of the SVR model built with the SFDI. The red line represents x = y (R2 = 1), and the black line indicates the fitting performance