Cargando…

Predicting rice blast disease: machine learning versus process-based models

BACKGROUND: In this study, we compared four models for predicting rice blast disease, two operational process-based models (Yoshino and Water Accounting Rice Model (WARM)) and two approaches based on machine learning algorithms (M5Rules and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN)), the former inducing a rul...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nettleton, David F., Katsantonis, Dimitrios, Kalaitzidis, Argyris, Sarafijanovic-Djukic, Natasa, Puigdollers, Pau, Confalonieri, Roberto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6806664/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31640541
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-3065-1
_version_ 1783461682820939776
author Nettleton, David F.
Katsantonis, Dimitrios
Kalaitzidis, Argyris
Sarafijanovic-Djukic, Natasa
Puigdollers, Pau
Confalonieri, Roberto
author_facet Nettleton, David F.
Katsantonis, Dimitrios
Kalaitzidis, Argyris
Sarafijanovic-Djukic, Natasa
Puigdollers, Pau
Confalonieri, Roberto
author_sort Nettleton, David F.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In this study, we compared four models for predicting rice blast disease, two operational process-based models (Yoshino and Water Accounting Rice Model (WARM)) and two approaches based on machine learning algorithms (M5Rules and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN)), the former inducing a rule-based model and the latter building a neural network. In situ telemetry is important to obtain quality in-field data for predictive models and this was a key aspect of the RICE-GUARD project on which this study is based. According to the authors, this is the first time process-based and machine learning modelling approaches for supporting plant disease management are compared. RESULTS: Results clearly showed that the models succeeded in providing a warning of rice blast onset and presence, thus representing suitable solutions for preventive remedial actions targeting the mitigation of yield losses and the reduction of fungicide use. All methods gave significant “signals” during the “early warning” period, with a similar level of performance. M5Rules and WARM gave the maximum average normalized scores of 0.80 and 0.77, respectively, whereas Yoshino gave the best score for one site (Kalochori 2015). The best average values of r and r(2) and %MAE (Mean Absolute Error) for the machine learning models were 0.70, 0.50 and 0.75, respectively and for the process-based models the corresponding values were 0.59, 0.40 and 0.82. Thus it has been found that the ML models are competitive with the process-based models. This result has relevant implications for the operational use of the models, since most of the available studies are limited to the analysis of the relationship between the model outputs and the incidence of rice blast. Results also showed that machine learning methods approximated the performances of two process-based models used for years in operational contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Process-based and data-driven models can be used to provide early warnings to anticipate rice blast and detect its presence, thus supporting fungicide applications. Data-driven models derived from machine learning methods are a viable alternative to process-based approaches and – in cases when training datasets are available – offer a potentially greater adaptability to new contexts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6806664
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68066642019-10-28 Predicting rice blast disease: machine learning versus process-based models Nettleton, David F. Katsantonis, Dimitrios Kalaitzidis, Argyris Sarafijanovic-Djukic, Natasa Puigdollers, Pau Confalonieri, Roberto BMC Bioinformatics Research Article BACKGROUND: In this study, we compared four models for predicting rice blast disease, two operational process-based models (Yoshino and Water Accounting Rice Model (WARM)) and two approaches based on machine learning algorithms (M5Rules and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN)), the former inducing a rule-based model and the latter building a neural network. In situ telemetry is important to obtain quality in-field data for predictive models and this was a key aspect of the RICE-GUARD project on which this study is based. According to the authors, this is the first time process-based and machine learning modelling approaches for supporting plant disease management are compared. RESULTS: Results clearly showed that the models succeeded in providing a warning of rice blast onset and presence, thus representing suitable solutions for preventive remedial actions targeting the mitigation of yield losses and the reduction of fungicide use. All methods gave significant “signals” during the “early warning” period, with a similar level of performance. M5Rules and WARM gave the maximum average normalized scores of 0.80 and 0.77, respectively, whereas Yoshino gave the best score for one site (Kalochori 2015). The best average values of r and r(2) and %MAE (Mean Absolute Error) for the machine learning models were 0.70, 0.50 and 0.75, respectively and for the process-based models the corresponding values were 0.59, 0.40 and 0.82. Thus it has been found that the ML models are competitive with the process-based models. This result has relevant implications for the operational use of the models, since most of the available studies are limited to the analysis of the relationship between the model outputs and the incidence of rice blast. Results also showed that machine learning methods approximated the performances of two process-based models used for years in operational contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Process-based and data-driven models can be used to provide early warnings to anticipate rice blast and detect its presence, thus supporting fungicide applications. Data-driven models derived from machine learning methods are a viable alternative to process-based approaches and – in cases when training datasets are available – offer a potentially greater adaptability to new contexts. BioMed Central 2019-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6806664/ /pubmed/31640541 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-3065-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Nettleton, David F.
Katsantonis, Dimitrios
Kalaitzidis, Argyris
Sarafijanovic-Djukic, Natasa
Puigdollers, Pau
Confalonieri, Roberto
Predicting rice blast disease: machine learning versus process-based models
title Predicting rice blast disease: machine learning versus process-based models
title_full Predicting rice blast disease: machine learning versus process-based models
title_fullStr Predicting rice blast disease: machine learning versus process-based models
title_full_unstemmed Predicting rice blast disease: machine learning versus process-based models
title_short Predicting rice blast disease: machine learning versus process-based models
title_sort predicting rice blast disease: machine learning versus process-based models
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6806664/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31640541
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-3065-1
work_keys_str_mv AT nettletondavidf predictingriceblastdiseasemachinelearningversusprocessbasedmodels
AT katsantonisdimitrios predictingriceblastdiseasemachinelearningversusprocessbasedmodels
AT kalaitzidisargyris predictingriceblastdiseasemachinelearningversusprocessbasedmodels
AT sarafijanovicdjukicnatasa predictingriceblastdiseasemachinelearningversusprocessbasedmodels
AT puigdollerspau predictingriceblastdiseasemachinelearningversusprocessbasedmodels
AT confalonieriroberto predictingriceblastdiseasemachinelearningversusprocessbasedmodels