| Literature DB >> 36079612 |
Ghazanfar Latif1,2, Sherif E Abdelhamid3, Roxane Elias Mallouhy1, Jaafar Alghazo4, Zafar Abbas Kazimi1.
Abstract
Rice is considered one the most important plants globally because it is a source of food for over half the world's population. Like other plants, rice is susceptible to diseases that may affect the quantity and quality of produce. It sometimes results in anywhere between 20-40% crop loss production. Early detection of these diseases can positively affect the harvest, and thus farmers would have to be knowledgeable about the various disease and how to identify them visually. Even then, it is an impossible task for farmers to survey the vast farmlands on a daily basis. Even if this is possible, it becomes a costly task that will, in turn, increases the price of rice for consumers. Machine learning algorithms fitted to drone technology combined with the Internet of Things (IoT) can offer a solution to this problem. In this paper, we propose a Deep Convolutional Neural Network (DCNN) transfer learning-based approach for the accurate detection and classification of rice leaf disease. The modified proposed approach includes a modified VGG19-based transfer learning method. The proposed modified system can accurately detect and diagnose six distinct classes: healthy, narrow brown spot, leaf scald, leaf blast, brown spot, and bacterial leaf blight. The highest average accuracy is 96.08% using the non-normalized augmented dataset. The corresponding precision, recall, specificity, and F1-score were 0.9620, 0.9617, 0.9921, and 0.9616, respectively. The proposed modified approach achieved significantly better results compared with similar approaches using the same dataset or similar-size datasets reported in the extant literature.Entities:
Keywords: VGG19; convolutional neural networks; deep learning; plant leaf disease detection; rice leaf disease detection; transfer learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 36079612 PMCID: PMC9460897 DOI: 10.3390/plants11172230
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Summary of different latest studies on rice disease classification with their accuracies.
| Reference | Method | Dataset Used | Performance (Accuracy %) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sowmyalakshmi et al. (2021) [ | CNNIR-OWELM-based deep learning | 115 images | 94.2% |
| Wang et al. (2021) [ | attention-based NN with Bayesian optimization | 2370 images | 94.65% |
| Bashir et al. (2019) [ | SVM image processing-based technique | 400 images | 94.17% |
| Liang et al. (2019) [ | Convolutional Neural System (CNN). | 5808 samples | 95% |
| Prajapati et al. (2018) [ | K-means clustering and Support Vector Machines | NA | 73.33% |
| Kaur et al. (2018) [ | k-NN and SVM | NA | 95.16% |
| Ramesh et al. (2018) [ | L*a*b, HSV and Texture Features with ANN classifier | 300 images | 90% |
| Lu et al. (2017) [ | Convolutional Neural Networks | 500 images | 95.48% |
| Joshi et al. (2016) [ | Minimum Distance Classifier (MDC) and k-NN | 115 images | 89.23% |
Figure 1Proposed deep convolutional neural networks (CNN) transfer learning-based approach for leaf disease classification.
Figure 2Distribution of train and test rice leaf images for different rice diseases.
Figure 3Sample Images of rice leaf diseases.
Figure 4Fine-tuned transfer learning for the VGG19 model for rice leaf disease identification.
Metric Equations and explanation.
| Metric | Equation | Measure |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy |
| A measure of the ratio of all correct classifications to the total number of the classifications |
| Precision |
| The ratio of the true positive cases over the total classified positive cases |
| Recall |
| (Sensitivity) The measure of the proportion of the actual positive cases that were classified correctly |
| Specificity |
| The measure of the proportion of the actual negative cases that were classified correctly |
| F1-Score |
| The harmonic mean of the precision and recall |
Comparison of experimental results using different well-known CNN architectures with their trained weights.
| CNN Model | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | Specificity | F1_score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-Normalized | GoogleNet | 83.87% | 0.8373 | 0.8404 | 0.9677 | 0.8379 |
| VGG16 | 88.71% | 0.8885 | 0.8889 | 0.9774 | 0.8835 | |
| VGG19 | 87.10% | 0.8674 | 0.8725 | 0.9742 | 0.8681 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| AlexNet | 86.18% | 0.8764 | 0.8629 | 0.9722 | 0.8554 | |
| Normalized Augmented | GoogleNet | 85.24% | 0.8492 | 0.8524 | 0.9705 | 0.8480 |
| VGG16 | 87.14% | 0.8723 | 0.8714 | 0.9743 | 0.8677 | |
| VGG19 | 85.00% | 0.8465 | 0.8500 | 0.9700 | 0.8454 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| AlexNet | 82.38% | 0.8588 | 0.8238 | 0.9648 | 0.7975 | |
| Non-Normalized Augmented | GoogleNet | 82.03% | 0.8235 | 0.8219 | 0.9640 | 0.8158 |
| VGG16 | 82.72% | 0.8515 | 0.8279 | 0.9653 | 0.8202 | |
| VGG19 | 81.11% | 0.8128 | 0.8120 | 0.9622 | 0.7920 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| AlexNet | 79.72% | 0.8100 | 0.8004 | 0.9594 | 0.7899 |
Comparison of experimental results using transfer learning-based optimized weights with well-known CNN architectures.
| CNN Model | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | Specificity | F1_Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-Normalized | GoogleNet | 89.63% | 0.8964 | 0.8976 | 0.9792 | 0.8967 |
| VGG16 | 95.62% | 0.9570 | 0.9571 | 0.9912 | 0.9570 | |
| VGG19 | 96.01% | 0.9626 | 0.9614 | 0.9921 | 0.9609 | |
| DenseNet201 | 94.24% | 0.9433 | 0.9435 | 0.9885 | 0.9431 | |
| AlexNet | 92.63% | 0.9306 | 0.9272 | 0.9852 | 0.9251 | |
| Normalized Augmented | GoogleNet | 86.90% | 0.8721 | 0.8690 | 0.9738 | 0.8675 |
| VGG16 | 94.76% | 0.9501 | 0.9476 | 0.9895 | 0.9475 | |
| VGG19 | 92.38% | 0.9255 | 0.9238 | 0.9848 | 0.9233 | |
| DenseNet201 | 92.86% | 0.9277 | 0.9286 | 0.9857 | 0.9280 | |
| AlexNet | 88.81% | 0.8868 | 0.8881 | 0.9776 | 0.8857 | |
| Non-Normalized Augmented | GoogleNet | 86.64% | 0.8681 | 0.8677 | 0.9732 | 0.8639 |
| VGG16 | 94.93% | 0.9529 | 0.9499 | 0.9898 | 0.9503 | |
| VGG19 | 96.08% | 0.9620 | 0.9617 | 0.9921 | 0.9616 | |
| DenseNet201 | 88.71% | 0.8983 | 0.8897 | 0.9774 | 0.8887 | |
| AlexNet | 85.71% | 0.8584 | 0.8597 | 0.9714 | 0.8555 |
Figure 5Comparison of Train Accuracy and Validation Accuracy for different model setups for VGG19-based Transfer Learning.
Figure 6Comparison of Train Loss and Validation Loss for different model setups for VGG19-based Transfer Learning.
Figure 7Confusion Matrix based comparison for different rice diseases identification for VGG19 with different model setups.