| Literature DB >> 35599890 |
Dongxue Zhao1, Shuai Feng1, Yingli Cao1,2, Fenghua Yu1,2, Qiang Guan1, Jinpeng Li1, Guosheng Zhang1, Tongyu Xu1,2.
Abstract
Leaf blast is a disease of rice leaves caused by the Pyricularia oryzae. It is considered a significant disease is affecting rice yield and quality and causing economic losses to food worldwide. Early detection of rice leaf blast is essential for early intervention and limiting the spread of the disease. To quickly and non-destructively classify rice leaf blast levels for accurate leaf blast detection and timely control. This study used hyperspectral imaging technology to obtain hyperspectral image data of rice leaves. The descending dimension methods got rice leaf disease characteristics of different disease classes, and the disease characteristics obtained by screening were used as model inputs to construct a model for early detection of leaf blast disease. First, three methods, ElasticNet, principal component analysis loadings (PCA loadings), and successive projections algorithm (SPA), were used to select the wavelengths of spectral features associated with leaf blast, respectively. Next, the texture features of the images were extracted using a gray level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM), and the texture features with high correlation were screened by the Pearson correlation analysis. Finally, an adaptive-weight immune particle swarm optimization extreme learning machine (AIPSO-ELM) based disease level classification method is proposed to further improve the model classification accuracy. It was also compared and analyzed with a support vector machine (SVM) and extreme learning machine (ELM). The results show that the disease level classification model constructed using a combination of spectral characteristic wavelengths and texture features is significantly better than a single disease feature in terms of classification accuracy. Among them, the model built with ElasticNet + TFs has the highest classification accuracy, with OA and Kappa greater than 90 and 87%, respectively. Meanwhile, the AIPSO-ELM proposed in this study has higher classification accuracy for leaf blast level classification than SVM and ELM classification models. In particular, the AIPSO-ELM model constructed with ElasticNet+TFs as features obtained the best classification performance, with OA and Kappa of 97.62 and 96.82%, respectively. In summary, the combination of spectral characteristic wavelength and texture features can significantly improve disease classification accuracy. At the same time, the AIPSO-ELM classification model proposed in this study has sure accuracy and stability, which can provide a reference for rice leaf blast disease detection.Entities:
Keywords: disease classification; fusion features; hyperspectral; leaf blast; rice
Year: 2022 PMID: 35599890 PMCID: PMC9120945 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.879668
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1Study area.
Disease classification criteria and sample size statistics.
| Disease levels | Disease classification criteria | Training sets | Testing sets |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 0 | No disease spots | 48 | 22 |
| Level 1 | Disease spot area less than 1% of leaf area | 49 | 19 |
| Level 2 | Disease spot area of 1%–5% of leaf area | 55 | 20 |
| Level 3 | Disease spots covering more than 5% of the leaf area | 49 | 23 |
| Total | – | 201 | 84 |
Figure 2Hyperspectral imaging system: (1) CCD camera; (2) Hyperspectral imaging spectrometer; (3) Lens; (4) Light source controller; (5) Light source; (6) Displacement stage; (7) Displacement stage controller; and (8) Computer.
Figure 3Flow chart of hyperspectral image data extraction: (A) original hyperspectral image; (B) acquisition of mask image; and (C) hyperspectral image of a leaf with background removed.
Table of confusion matrix definitions.
| Positive | Negative | |
|---|---|---|
| Positive | True Positive (TP) | False Negative (FN) |
| Negative | False Positive (FP) | True Negative (TN) |
Figure 4Average leaf reflectance curves and corresponding standard deviation values of healthy rice plants and rice plants at different disease stages.
The Coefficient of variation of spectra of different disease levels.
| Level | Level 0 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CV | 0.0702 | 0.0771 | 0.0810 | 0.0642 |
The cumulative contribution of some principal components.
| PCs | Eigenvalure | Contribution/% | Accumulative contribution/% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 373.74 | 67.83 | 67.83 |
| 2 | 157.20 | 28.53 | 96.36 |
| 3 | 14.52 | 2.63 | 98.99 |
| 4 | 3.12 | 0.57 | 99.56 |
| 5 | 1.12 | 0.20 | 99.76 |
Figure 5Selected o spectral characteristics wavelength using principal component analysis (PCA) loading (The wavelength of the spectrum in red is the selected characteristic wavelength).
Spectral characteristic wavelengths for ElasticNet, PCA, and SPA screening.
| Descending dimension method | Characteristic wavelengths/nm |
|---|---|
| ElasticNet | 534,681,682,684,686,687,749,752,754,768,982,984,993, and 995 |
| PCA | 484,508,835,837,629,673,678,679,693,702,718,723, and 753 |
| SPA | 497,533,580,659,681,704,735,841,990, and 1,000 |
Figure 6Selected o spectral characteristics wavelength using sequential projection algorithm (SPA). (A) Number of optimal spectral variables. (B) Characteristic wavelengths for screening.
Figure 7Selected o spectral characteristics wavelength using ElasticNet.
Results of the Pearson correlation analysis.
| Texture features |
| Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Energy-Avg | 0.829 | ** |
| Energy-Std | −0.397 | ** |
| Entropy-Avg | −0.576 | ** |
| Entropy-Std | −0.548 | ** |
| Contrast-Avg | −0.345 | ** |
| Contrast-Std | −0.376 | ** |
| Correlation-Avg | −0.040 | – |
| Correlation-Std | −0.201 | ** |
“**” indicates a significant correlation at 0.01. “-” indicates no significant correlation. Energy-Avg, Energy-Std represents the capacity mean and energy SD, respectively, the same below.
Modeling results of AIPSO-ELM algorithm.
| Features | Precision/% | Recall/% | OA/% | Kappa/% | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level 0 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 0 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | |||
| ElasticNet | 95.65 | 94.12 | 86.36 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 84.21 | 95.00 | 95.65 | 94.05 | 92.05 |
| PCA | 100.00 | 100.00 | 76.92 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 78.95 | 100.00 | 91.30 | 92.86 | 90.46 |
| SPA | 95.65 | 93.75 | 81.82 | 95.65 | 100.00 | 78.95 | 90.00 | 95.65 | 91.67 | 88.86 |
| TFs | 86.96 | 82.35 | 82.61 | 100.00 | 90.91 | 73.68 | 95.00 | 91.30 | 88.10 | 84.10 |
| ElasticNet+TFs | 100.00 | 90.48 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 90.00 | 100.00 | 97.62 | 96.82 |
| PCA + TFs | 100.00 | 90.48 | 94.74 | 95.65 | 95.45 | 100.00 | 90.00 | 95.65 | 95.24 | 93.64 |
| SPA+TFs | 94.45 | 85.00 | 94.74 | 100.00 | 95.45 | 89.47 | 90.00 | 100.00 | 94.05 | 92.05 |
Modeling results of SVM and ELM.
| Model | Features | Precision/% | Recall/% | OA/% | Kappa/% | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level 0 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 0 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | ||||
| SVM | ElasticNet | 100.00 | 76.19 | 85.00 | 95.45 | 95.45 | 84.21 | 85.00 | 93.33 | 89.26 | 85.71 |
| PCA | 100.00 | 75.00 | 80.95 | 96.65 | 90.91 | 78.95 | 85.00 | 95.65 | 88.10 | 84.11 | |
| SPA | 100.00 | 73.68 | 77.27 | 95.65 | 90.91 | 73.68 | 85.00 | 95.65 | 86.90 | 82.52 | |
| TFs | 85.71 | 76.19 | 90.00 | 95.65 | 81.82 | 84.21 | 90.00 | 91.67 | 87.06 | 82.72 | |
| ElasticNet+TFs | 95.45 | 94.44 | 95.24 | 100.00 | 95.45 | 89.47 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 96.43 | 95.23 | |
| PCA + TFs | 91.67 | 100.00 | 90.91 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 89.47 | 100.00 | 91.30 | 95.24 | 93.64 | |
| SPA+TFs | 95.24 | 90.00 | 95.24 | 100.00 | 93.02 | 92.31 | 97.56 | 97.78 | 95.24 | 93.65 | |
| ELM | ElasticNet | 95.00 | 77.27 | 81.82 | 100.00 | 86.36 | 89.47 | 90.00 | 86.96 | 88.20 | 84.14 |
| PCA | 100.00 | 83.33 | 69.23 | 100.00 | 95.45 | 78.95 | 90.00 | 82.61 | 86.75 | 82.55 | |
| SPA | 100.00 | 77.27 | 76.19 | 90.48 | 90.91 | 89.47 | 80.00 | 82.61 | 85.75 | 80.96 | |
| TFs | 94.44 | 75.00 | 75.00 | 86.36 | 77.27 | 94.74 | 75.00 | 82.61 | 82.40 | 76.22 | |
| ElasticNet+TFs | 90.91 | 89.47 | 86.96 | 95.00 | 90.91 | 89.47 | 100.00 | 82.61 | 90.75 | 87.30 | |
| PCA + TFs | 87.50 | 93.33 | 80.00 | 100.00 | 95.45 | 73.68 | 100.00 | 86.96 | 89.02 | 85.69 | |
| SPA+TFs | 90.91 | 88.24 | 83.33 | 90.48 | 90.91 | 78.95 | 100.00 | 82.61 | 88.12 | 84.11 | |
Figure 8Confusion matrix based on ElasticNet+TFs modelling. LV0: Healthy (no disease spot); LV1: Level 1 (disease spot area less than 1% of leaf area); LV2: Level 2 (disease spot area of 1%–5% of leaf area); LV3: Level 3 (disease spots covering more than 5% of the leaf area). The diagonal line is the number of samples judged to be correct. (A) ElasticNet+TFs-adaptive-weight immune particle swarm optimization extreme learning machine (AIPSO-ELM), (B) ElasticNet+TFs-support vector machine (SVM), and (C) ElasticNet+TFs-ELM.