| Literature DB >> 36081825 |
Mohsen Mirzaei1, Jochem Verrelst2, Safar Marofi3, Mozhgan Abbasi4, Hossein Azadi5.
Abstract
Heavy metal monitoring in food-producing ecosystems can play an important role in human health safety. Since they are able to interfere with plants' physiochemical characteristics, which influence the optical properties of leaves, they can be measured by in-field spectroscopy. In this study, the predictive power of spectroscopic data is examined. Five treatments of heavy metal stress (Cu, Zn, Pb, Cr, and Cd) were applied to grapevine seedlings and hyperspectral data (350-2500 nm), and heavy metal contents were collected based on in-field and laboratory experiments. The partial least squares (PLS) method was used as a feature selection technique, and multiple linear regressions (MLR) and support vector machine (SVM) regression methods were applied for modelling purposes. Based on the PLS results, the wavelengths in the vicinity of 2431, 809, 489, and 616 nm; 2032, 883, 665, 564, 688, and 437 nm; 1865, 728, 692, 683, and 356 nm; 863, 2044, 415, 652, 713, and 1036 nm; and 1373, 631, 744, and 438 nm were found most sensitive for the estimation of Cu, Zn, Pb, Cr, and Cd contents in the grapevine leaves, respectively. Therefore, visible and red-edge regions were found most suitable for estimating heavy metal contents in the present study. Heavy metals played a significant role in reforming the spectral pattern of stressed grapevine compared to healthy samples, meaning that in the best structures of the SVM regression models, the concentrations of Cu, Zn, Pb, Cr, and Cd were estimated with R2 rates of 0.56, 0.85, 0.71, 0.80, and 0.86 in the testing set, respectively. The results confirm the efficiency of in-field spectroscopy in estimating heavy metals content in grapevine foliage.Entities:
Keywords: MLR; PLS; SVM; field spectroscopy; grapevine; heavy metals; hyperspectral
Year: 2019 PMID: 36081825 PMCID: PMC7613366 DOI: 10.3390/rs11232731
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Remote Sens (Basel) ISSN: 2072-4292 Impact factor: 5.349
Figure 1Schematic design of the treatment for each studied metal (C: control, L1 to L4: level 1 to level 4 stressed, MAL: maximum allowed level) and image of applied grapevine seedling pots.
Characteristics of studied hyperspectral indices [13,46].
| Indices | Equation | Indices | Equation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cellulose Absorption Index, CAI | 0.5(R2000 + R2200) - R2100 | Gitelson and Merzlyak | GM1 = (R750)/(R550) |
| Moisture Stress Index, MSI | (R1600)/(R820) | Chlorophyll, GM1 and 2 | GM2 = (R750)/(R700) |
| Normalized Difference Water Index, NDWI | (R860 - R1240)/(R860 + R1240) | Lichtenthaler Indices, Lic1 to 3 | Lic1 = (R800 - R680)/(R800 + R680) |
| Disease Water Stress Index, DWSI | (R802 + R547)/(R1657 + R682) | Lic2 = (R440)/(R690) | |
| Band ratio at 975 nm, RATIO975 | 2×R960 –990/(R920 – 940 + R1090 - 1110) | Lic3 = (R440)/(R740) | |
| Band ratio at 1200 nm, RATIO975-2 | 2×R1180 - 1220/(R1090 – 1110 + R1265 – 1285) | Simple Ratio Pigment Index, SRPI | (R430)/(R680) |
| Leaf Chlorophyll Index, LCI | (R850 - R710)/(R850 + R680) | Normalized Phaepophytiniz Index, NPQI | (R415 - R435)/(R415 + R435) |
| DattA | (R780 - R710)/(R780 – R680) | Normalized Pigment Chlorophyll Ratio Index, NPCI | (R680 - R430)/(R680 + R430) |
| Modified Red Edge Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, mNDVI705 | (R750 +R705)/(R750 + R705 - 2×R445) | Greenness Index, GI | (R554)/(R677) |
| Chlorophyll Index, SGB | (R750 - R445)/(R705 - R445) | Water Index at 1180nm, WI1180 | (R900)/(R1180) |
| Structure Intensive Pigment Index, SIPI | (R445 - R800)/(R680 - R800) | Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, NDVI | (R831 - R667)/(R831 + R667) |
| Simple Ratio, SR | (R774)/(R677) | Carter Index, CI | (R760/R695) |
| Reflectance at 550 nm, R550 | (R550) | Vogelman Index, VOG | (R740/R720) |
| Reflectance at 680 nm, R680 | (R680) | Carotenoid Reflectance Index, CRI | R800(1/R520 - 1/R550) |
| Water Index, WI | (R900)/(R970) | Photochemical Reflectance Index, PRI | PRI1 = (R531 - R570)/(R531 + R570) |
| PRI2 = 1.5(R830 - R660)/(R830 - R660 + 0.5) | |||
| PRI3 = (R539 - R570)/(R539 + R570) | |||
R: Reflectance.
Figure 2Average reflectance spectrum of healthy grapevine leaves vs. the heavy metal-stressed grapevine leaves (from 350 to 2500 nm).
Figure 3Correlation coefficient between the heavy metal concentration (determined by laboratory analysis) and spectral response of grapevine leaf samples (350 to 2500 nm).
Figure 4The factor load of wavelengths (350–2500 nm) in the optimal components extracted by the the partial least squares (PLS) method for estimating heavy metal concentrations (from top to bottom) in the grapevine leaves (vertical axis is the factor load).
Summary of the PLS results on the number of components and optimal indices for estimating heavy metal contents in grapevine leaves.
| Heavy Metal | No. of Optimal Components | Cumulative Variance (%) | Optimal Indices in Components |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4 | 82 | SR, CAI, RATIO9752, and DWSI |
|
| 5 | 84 | R680, WI, Lic1, MSI, and PRI2 |
|
| 4 | 88 | VOG, MSI, SIPI, and R550 |
|
| 4 | 92 | mNDVI705, GI, RATIO975, and SIPI |
|
| 2 | 81 | SIPI and DWSI |
Modelling and validation results of the best support vector machine (SVM) models based on optimal wavelengths and spectral indices for estimating heavy metal concentrations in grapevine leaves in training and testing sets. RBF: radial basis function.
| Hyperspectral Data Type | Heavy Metal | Model Structure | Train | Test | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kernel Function | No. of Vectors | Coefficient | Degree | Gamma | R2 | RMSE | R2 | RMSE | ||
| WaveLengths | Cu | RBF | 13 | - | - | 0.25 | 0.97 | 7.46 | 0.54 | 25.06 |
| Zn | Linear | 25 | - | - | - | 0.67 | 22.50 | 0.42 | 29.65 | |
| Pb | RBF | 21 | - | - | 0.20 | 0.89 | 22.28 | 0.71 | 24.09 | |
| Cr | Linear | 30 | - | - | - | 0.84 | 5.61 | 0.71 | 7.82 | |
| Cd | RBF | 34 | - | - | 0.25 | 0.78 | 98.16 | 0.77 | 103.09 | |
| Spectral Indices | Cu | Linear | 32 | - | - | - | 0.88 | 13.01 | 0.50 | 25.46 |
| Zn | RBF | 23 | - | - | 0.8 | 0.92 | 13.42 | 0.85 | 15.94 | |
| Pb | RBF | 24 | - | - | 0.4 | 0.85 | 22.49 | 0.67 | 24.51 | |
| Cr | RBF | 43 | - | - | 0.32 | 0.80 | 7.27 | 0.79 | 6.11 | |
| Cd | Polynomial | 19 | 1 | 11 | 0.7 | 0.88 | 91.94 | 0.86 | 102.85 | |
mg/kg: dry weight.
The results of modelling and validation of the best multiple linear regression (MLR) models based on optimal wavelengths and spectral indices for estimating heavy metals concentrations in grapevine leaves in training and testing sets.
| Hyperspectral | Heavy Metal | Predictor Variable VIF | Sig. of Regression | Durbin– | Model Structure | Train | Test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | RMSE | R2 | RMSE | ||||||
| Wavelengths | Cu | All <10 | <0.05 | 2.17 | CCu = –1.27 – (0.28×R2431) + (4.08×R809) – (5.32×R489) – (8.73×R616) | 0.94 | 9.35 | 0.56 | 25.60 |
| Zn | All <10 | <0.05 | 2.18 | CZn = –1.11 – (5.77×R2032) – (1.83×R665) + (2.38×R564) + (13.85×R688) – (7.7×R437) | 0.73 | 20.46 | 0.47 | 399.13 | |
| Pb | Some cases >10 | >0.05 | 1.39 | CPb = 0.46 – (5.1×R692) + (6.24×R683) | 0.32 | 25.29 | 0.13 | 27.28 | |
| Cr | All <10 | <0.05 | 1.59 | CCr = 0.61 + (18.08×R415) – (1.41×R2044) – (4.01×R652) – (1.99×R1036) + (1.11×R713) | 0.84 | 5.58 | 0.78 | 6.79 | |
| Cd | All <10 | <0.05 | 1.38 | CCd = 0.98 + (2.76×R1373) + (3.15×R631) + (1.04×R744) – (5.09×R438) | 0.63 | 132.79 | 0.64 | 117.26 | |
| Spectral Indices | Cu | All<10 | <0.05 | 1.74 | CCu = –2.95 + (3.38×SR) – (0.01×CAI) + (6.76×RATIO9752) – (0.77×DWSI) | 0.89 | 12.63 | 0.52 | 25.33 |
| Zn | Some cases >10 | <0.05 | 1.81 | CZn = –2.26 – (11.34×R680) + (41.89×WI) + (20.68×Lic1) – (3.63×MSI) – (4.14×PRI2) | 0.87 | 15.73 | 0.70 | 20.38 | |
| Pb | All<10 | <0.05 | 1.55 | CPb = 2.53 – (1.33×VOG) + (1.93×MSI) + (0.85×SIPI) | 0.50 | 24.45 | 0.15 | 27.03 | |
| Cr | All<10 | <0.05 | 1.06 | CCr = –4.97 + (5.23× mNDVI705) + (0.17×GI) – (1.28×RATIO975) | 0.59 | 8.48 | 0.60 | 8.78 | |
| Cd | All<10 | <0.05 | 1.27 | CCd =–6.66 + (4.70×SIPI) + (1.13×DWSI) | 0.66 | 121.77 | 0.67 | 112.17 | |
mg/kg: dry weight, Rn: reflections at a certain wavelength, Cn: concentration of a certain heavy metal.
Figure 5Standardized values (between 0 and 1) of the observed (horizontal axis) and the predicted (vertical axis) concentration of Cu based on wavelengths (top) and spectral indices (bottom) in the testing sets of the SVM and MLR methods.
Figure 6Standardized values (between 0 and 1) of the observed (horizontal axis) and the predicted (vertical axis) concentration of Zn based on wavelengths (top) and spectral indices (bottom) in the testing sets of the SVM and MLR methods.
Figure 7The standardized values (between 0–1) of the observed (horizontal axis) and the predicted (vertical axis) concentration of Pb based on wavelengths (top) and spectral indices (bottom) in the testing sets of the SVM and MLR methods.
Figure 8The standardized values (between 0–1) of the observed (horizontal axis) and the predicted (vertical axis) concentration of Cr based on wavelengths (top) and spectral indices (bottom) in the testing sets of the SVM and MLR methods.
Figure 9The standardized values (between 0–1) of the observed (horizontal axis) and the predicted (vertical axis) concentration of Cd based on wavelengths (top) and spectral indices (bottom) in the testing sets of the SVM and MLR methods.
Comparison results of the best models presented in this study and other similar studies iπ relation to the estimation of heavy metal contents in plant species using field-based spectrometry.
| Metal | Reference | Plant/Species | Approach | Optimal Spectral Indices/Wavelengths | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu | Present study | Grape | MLR | R616, R489, R809, R2431 | 0.56 |
| Li [ | Vegetation | MLR | 0.60 | ||
| Zhuang [ | Paddy/Rice | MLR | 0.76 | ||
| Ping et al. [ | Maize | MLR | NI15, NI11 | 0.69 | |
| Zn | Present study | Grape | SVM | WI, Lic1, MSI, PRI2 R680 | 0.85 |
| Li [ | Vegetation | MLR | 0.48 | ||
| Zhuang [ | Paddy/Rice | MLR | 661.96×R2210-136.26 | 0.34 | |
| Kooistra et al. [ | Grass | MLR | MSAVI2 | 0.64 | |
| Liu et al. [ | Rice | ANN | 0.95 | ||
| Pb | Present study | Grape | SVM | R683, R356 R692, R1865, R728 | 0.71 |
| Li [ | Vegetation | MLR | 0.77 | ||
| Zhuang [ | Paddy/Rice | MLR | 0.70 | ||
| Ping et al. [ | Maize | MLR | NI15, NI17 | 0.87 | |
| Cr | Present study | Grape | SVM | mNDVI705, GI, RATIO975, SIPI | 0.80 |
| Ping et al. [ | Maize | MLR | NI5, R553 | 0.49 | |
| Li et al. [ | Vegetation | MLR | R688, R672, R874, R677, R678, R679, R 680, R566 | 0.81 | |
| Cd | Present study | Grape | SVM | SIPI, DWSI | 0.86 |
| Ping et al. [ | Maize | MLR | NI11, NI17 | 0.63 | |
| Liu et al. [ | Rice | MLR | 0.70 |
NI11: (R700–R690)/(R700+R690), NI15: (R760–850–R350–400)/(R760–850+R350–400), NI17:(R1220– R510)/(R1220+R510), Rn: Reflections at a certain wavelength.