Fig. 1. Images of cotton leaves with different degree of mite damage
(a): Level 0; (b): Level 1; (c): Level 2; (d): Level 3
Fig. 2. Technical route of cotton field spider mite monitoring
Fig. 3. Spectral reflectance curves of ground canopies with different degrees of mite damage
Fig. 4. First derivative spectral curve of ground canopy with the different degrees of spider mites damage
Fig. 5. Reflectance curve of multispectral image with different degrees of spidermite damage
Fig. 6. Spatial distribution map (a, b, c, d, e, f) of cotton field spider mite monitoring in (June 22, 27, 28, Jule 3, 9, 13) different periods
植被指数 | 公式 |
---|
NDGI | (G-R)/(G+R) | TVI | 0.5×[120×(NIR-G)-200×(R-G)][10] | MSR | (NIR/R-1)/[(NIR/R)0.5+1][10] | MSAVI | 0.5×{(2×NIR+1)-[(2×NIR+1)2- 8×(NIR-R)]0.5}[11] | RDVI | (NIR-R)/[(NIR+R)0.5][10] | RVI | NIR/R[11] | REWDRVI | (0.15×NIR-RE)/(0.15×NIR+RE)[11] | DVI | NIR-R[10] | GNDVI | (NIR-G)/(NIR+G)[11] | SAVI | 1.5×(NIR-R)/(NIR+R+0.5)[12] | ARI | (1/G)-(1/RE) | OSAVI | 1.16×(NIR-R)/(NIR+R+0.16)[12] | NDVI | (NIR-R)/(NIR+R)[12] | EVI | 2.5×[(NIR-R)/(NIR+6×R-7.5×G+1)][13] | GRVI | NIR/G[13] | GDVI | NIR-G[13] | GOSAVI | (1+0.16)×(NIR-G)/(NIR+G+0.16)[13] | REDVI | NIR-RE[13] | RERVI | NIR/RE[13] | RESAVI | 1.5×[(NIR-RE)/(NIR+RE+0.5)][13] | RERDVI | (NIR-RE)/[(NIR+RE)0.5] [13] | RENDVI | (NIR-RE)/(NIR+RE)[13] | REOSAVI | (1+0.16)×(NIR-RE)/(NIR+RE+0.16)[13] |
|
Table 1. Calculation formulas for vegetation index
植被指数 | RDVI | SAVI | OSAVI | TVI | NDGI | RVI | MSR |
---|
相关系数 | 0.407* | 0.222** | 0.304** | 0.492** | -0.304** | 0.210* | 0.197* |
|
Table 2. Correlation between the occurrence of spider mite and vegetation indices
环境数据 | 最高温度 | 平均温度 | 平均湿度 | 温湿系数 | 积温 | 10 cm土壤最高温度 | 10 cm土壤平均温度 | 10 cm土壤平均湿度 |
---|
相关系数 | -0.218* | -0.178* | 0.221** | 0.243** | -0.213* | -0.201* | -0.258** | 0.213* |
|
Table 3. Correlation between the occurrence of spider mite and environmental data
建模方式 | 样本 | 训练样本 | 测试样本 |
---|
健康 | 螨害 | 准确率/% | 健康 | 螨害 | 准确率/% | 精确率/% | 召回率/% | F1值/% |
---|
单一环境数据M1 | 健康 螨害 | 26 9 | 23 32 | 64.44 | 13 10 | 8 14 | 60 | 56.52 | 61.9 | 59.09 | 单一植被指数M2 | 健康 螨害 | 27 12 | 9 42 | 76.67 | 15 8 | 6 16 | 68.89 | 65.22 | 71.43 | 68.18 | 环境数据与植被 指数结合M3 | 健康 螨害 | 26 3 | 13 48 | 82.22 | 12 4 | 5 24 | 80 | 75 | 70.59 | 72.73 |
|
Table 4. Comparison of classification results of the different degrees of spider mite monitoring models
环境数据 | 最高温度 | 平均湿度 | 温湿系数 | 积温 | 10 cm土壤最高温度 | 10 cm土壤平均温度 |
---|
相关系数 | 0.707* | 0.844* | 0.931** | 0.837* | 0.856* | 0.974** |
|
Table 5. Correlation coefficient between environmental data and cotton field spider mite area
模型 | R | R2 | 调整后R2 | 标准估算的误差 |
---|
M2 | 0.874 | 0.848 | 0.835 | 0.914 9 |
|
Table 6. Model evaluation results
日期 | 实际值/亩 | 预测值/亩 |
---|
6.22 | 64.168 | 58.374 | 6.27 | 18.361 | 18.591 | 6.29 | 20.348 | 18.101 | 7.3 | 50.055 | 41.666 | 7.9 | 43.087 | 42.39 | 7.13 | 72.831 | 69.83 |
|
Table 7. Comparison of prediction results of cotton field spider mite area prediction models