Skip to main navigation Skip to main content
  • KSBS
  • E-Submission

Plant Breed. Biotech. : Plant Breeding and Biotechnology

OPEN ACCESS
ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICIES
FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Articles

Research Article

Statistical and Machine Learning-Based FHB Detection in Durum Wheat

Plant Breeding and Biotechnology 2020;8(3):265-280.
Published online: September 1, 2020

Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil 56199-11367, Iran

*Corresponding author Nasrin Azimi, azimi.nasrin70@gmail.com, Tel: +98-(45)-3351-0140, Fax: +98-(45)-3351-2204
• Received: May 26, 2020   • Revised: July 30, 2020   • Accepted: August 1, 2020

Copyright © 2020 by the Korean Society of Breeding Science

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 9 Views
  • 0 Download
  • 7 Crossref
prev next

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Leveraging the WFD2020 Dataset for Multi-Class Detection of Wheat Fungal Diseases with YOLOv8 and Faster R-CNN
    Shivani Sood, Harjeet Singh, Surbhi Bhatia Khan, Ahlam Almusharraf
    Computers, Materials & Continua.2025; 84(2): 2751.     CrossRef
  • A Review of Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Wheat Crop Monitoring and Management
    Jayme Garcia Arnal Barbedo
    Agronomy.2025; 15(5): 1157.     CrossRef
  • Wheat Fusarium Head Blight Automatic Non-Destructive Detection Based on Multi-Scale Imaging: A Technical Perspective
    Guoqing Feng, Ying Gu, Cheng Wang, Yanan Zhou, Shuo Huang, Bin Luo
    Plants.2024; 13(13): 1722.     CrossRef
  • Assessment of Fusarium Head Blight Resistance Genes in Domestic Wheat Varieties
    Myoung Hui Lee, Changhyun Choi, Sumin Hong, Chon-Sik Kang, Mira Yoon, Ki-Chang Jang, Chul Soo Park, Kyeong-Min Kim
    Korean Journal of Breeding Science.2024; 56(3): 205.     CrossRef
  • Current Trends in Wheat Breeding Strategies for Developing Domestic Wheat Cultivars in Korea
    Hajeong Kang, Hyoun-Min Park, San-Gu Lee, Eun-Ha Kim, Muhammad Imran, Hanyoung Choi, Myeong-Ji Kim, Seonwoo Oh
    Korean Journal of Breeding Science.2024; 56(4): 491.     CrossRef
  • Research Advances in Wheat Breeding and Genetics for Fusarium Head Blight Resistance
    Myoung-Hui Lee, Sumin Hong, Kyeong-Min Kim, Sun-Hwa Kwak, Changhyun Choi, Chon-Sik Kang, Chul Soo Park, Youngjun Mo, Kyeong-Hoon Kim
    Korean Journal of Breeding Science.2023; 55(3): 195.     CrossRef
  • Leaf and spike wheat disease detection & classification using an improved deep convolutional architecture
    Lakshay Goyal, Chandra Mani Sharma, Anupam Singh, Pradeep Kumar Singh
    Informatics in Medicine Unlocked.2021; 25: 100642.     CrossRef

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Statistical and Machine Learning-Based FHB Detection in Durum Wheat
Plant Breed. Biotech.. 2020;8(3):265-280.   Published online September 1, 2020
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Statistical and Machine Learning-Based FHB Detection in Durum Wheat
Plant Breed. Biotech.. 2020;8(3):265-280.   Published online September 1, 2020
Close

Figure

  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
Statistical and Machine Learning-Based FHB Detection in Durum Wheat
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Fig. 1 FHB symptom development on durum wheat spikes (a-d).
Fig. 2 FHB effects on durum wheat grains (small, shriveled pale, and white).
Fig. 3 Recording the morphology of wheat plants using the robotic digital camera.
Fig. 4 (a) Fusarium graminearum colony growth; (b) Macroconidial suspension preparation; (c) flowering stage of spikes; (d) covered spiked with plastic bags.
Fig. 5 Growth of the Fusarium fungus. (a) Control; (b) Infected.
Fig. 6 The architecture of the SVM classifier using the morphological traits.
Fig. 7 Mean values of the number of seeds per spike in different genotypes.
Fig. 8 Correlation coefficients between the morphological traits (* and ** indicate the significance level at 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively). (a) Control; (b) Infected.
Fig. 9 Correlation coefficients between the biochemical traits (* and ** indicate the significance level at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively). (a) Control; (b) Infected.
Fig. 10 Hierarchical cluster analysis based on the morphological traits and Ward’s method.
Fig. 11 Total confusion matrices of the SVM, DT, KNN, and NB classifiers using test datasets (‘0’ and ‘1’ indicate control and infected samples, respectively).
Fig. 12 The ROC curves of the selected classifiers; SVM, DT, KNN, and NB.
Statistical and Machine Learning-Based FHB Detection in Durum Wheat

Family tree of studied Durum wheat lines in this study (Mohammadnia et al. 2015).

Line number Family tree
1 SRN_1/6/FGO/DOM//NACH/5/ALTAR84/4/GARZA/AFN//CRA/3/GGOVZ394/7/GEDIZ/FGO//GTA/3/CN D/8/GREEN_38/9/2*STOT//ALTAR 84/ALDCDSSOOBOO227T-0TOPY-0B-6Y-0M-0Y-1B
2 ALTAR 84/BINTEPE 85/3/ALTAR 84/STINT// SILVER_45/4/LHNKE/RASCON//CONA-DCDSS99B 01265T0TOPY-0M-0Y-12Y-0M-0Y-1M-0Y
3 AINZEN-1/SORD_3CDSS99B00317S-0M-0Y-104Y-0M0Y
4 STAT//ALTAR 84/ALD*2/3/AUK/GUIL// GREENCDSS00Y00786-0TOPB-9Y-0BLR-5Y-0B-0Y-1M-0Y
5 LLARETA
INIA/YEBAS_8/3MINIMUS_6/PLATA_16//MMERCDSS00Y01047T-0TOPB-5Y-OBLR-1Y-0B-0Y-1B-0Y 1B-0Y
6 GEDIZ/FGO//GTA/3/SRN_1/4TOTUS/5/ENTE/MEXI_2/HUI/3/YAV_/GEDIZ/6/SOMBRA_20/7/STAT//ALTAR84/ALDCDSS97Y00835 S 0TOPM-4Y-0M-0Y-0B-0B-3Y-0BLR-1Y-0B27 RASCON_21/3/MQUE/ALO// FOJACDSS94Y00099 -7M-0Y-0B-1Y-0B-0BLR-5Y-0B
7 GAUNT_10/SNITANCDSS97Y0038S-4Y-0M-0Y-0B-0B-3Y-0BLR-1Y-0B
8 ALTAR 84/STINT// SILVER_45/3/CBC 503 CHLE/4/AUK/GUIL//GREENCDSS99B0 1115T-0TOPY-0M-0Y-Y-0M-0Y-1B-0Y
9 SRN_1/6/FGO/DOM//NACH/5/ALTAR84/4/GARZA/AFN//CRA/3/GGOVZ394/7/GEDIZ/FGO//GTA/3/CNDO/8/GREEN_38/9/2*STOT//ALTAR-84/ALDSS00B00227T-0TOPY-0B
10 STOT//ALTAR 84/ALD/3/GREEN_18/FOCHA_1//AIR0N_1CDSS 99B00467S0-0M-0Y-75Y-0M-0Y-2M-0Y
11 RASCON_21/3/MQUE/ALO//FOJA/4/GREEN_38/BUSHEN_4/5/CADOO/BOOMER_33CDSS99B01055T-0TOPY0M-0Y-10Y-0M-0Y-1M-0Y
12 SOMO/CROC_4//LOTUS_I/3KITTI/4/STOT//ALTAR 84/ALDCDSS99Y0063S-0M-0Y-34Y-0M-0Y-0B
13 CMH82A.1062/3/GGOVZ394//SBA81/PLC/4/AAZ_1/CREX/5/HUI//CIT71/CH/6/STOT/ALTAR84/ALD CDSS99Y00643S-0M-0Y-16Y-0M-0Y-0B
14 Dehdasht
15 ACUATICO_1/RASCON_33//ACUATICO_1/3/AJAIA_12/F3LOCAL.(SEL.ETHIO.135.85)//PLATA_13CDSS96Y00
16 SAIMAREH
17 STOT//ALTAR 84/ALD/3/THB/CEP7780//2*MUSK_4CDSS99Y00366 S-3Y-0M-0Y-0BLR-1Y-0B-1M-0Y
18 ALTAR 84/STINT//SILVER_ 45/3/STOT// ALTAR 84/ALDCDSS99Y 0037S-7Y-0M-0Y-0BLR-0B-1B-0Y
19 RASCON_21/3/MQUE/ALO//FOJACDSS94Y00099S-7M-0Y-0B-1Y-0B-0BLR-5Y-0B
20 PLATA_8/4/GARZA/AFN//CRA/3/GTA/5/RASCON/6/CADO/BOOMER_33/7/STOT//ALTAR84/ALDCDSS99B0 0843S-0TOPY-0M-0Y-5Y-0M-0Y-1B-0Y

Variance analysis for morphological traits of durum wheat lines (units: cm, gram).

Variation source Degree of freedom Peduncle length Spikelet density Stem
length
Awn length Grain weight per spike Number of seeds per spike
Genotype 19 10** 0.358** 40.79** 7.59** 0.071** 132.51**
Stress 1 36.41** 0.276** 64.68** 15.48** 8.17** 1755.7**
Genotype × Stress 19 2.41** 0.172** 37.33** 1.37** 0.052** 69.95**
Error 78 1.017 0.043 10.14 0.249 0.12 11.73
Variation factor (%) 10.67 10.52 18.96 13.4 9.5 8.21

Mean values of the morphological traits, using Duncan’s method at the significance level of P < 0.05 (units: cm, gram).

Genotype Peduncle length Spikelet density Stem length Awn length Grain weight
per spike
Number of seeds per spike






0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
1 28a-h 27.4d-k 2.23ij 2.35h-j 47.16h-j 55.6e-d 11.33cd 11.1cd 0.70e-h 0.23n-p 16.33h-m 10.33k-n
2 29.9a 27.8b-i 2.47e-j 2.61d-j 52b-i 54.2a-g 10.50d-g 8.9i-o 0.84c-f 0.54h-l 20.33e-j 23.66b-f
3 24.5n 25.3l-n 2.44e-j 2.44e-j 48.1g-j 50.03c-j 8.70j-o 8.1o-q 0.93a-d 0.41k-p 23.33c-g 18f-j
4 26.8f-m 25.5i-n 3.05bc 3.05bc 56.4a-c 52.6b-j 9.80f-i 7.5pq 1.7a 0.23n-p 30b 10.33k-n
5 29.5a-c 28a-h 2.51e-j 2.32h-j 56a-d 54.8a-f 8.3n-p 8.1o-q 0.65f-i 0.25n-p 11.33k-n 11k-n
6 29.1a-d 28.6a-f 2.43e-j 2.78b-j 53.1a-h 50.4c-j 9.3i-o 10.7c-e 0.63f-j 0.44j-n 21.33d-h 19.33f-j
7 29.8ab 26.3h-n 2.63d-i 2.28h-j 59a 47.33h-j 11.66bc 11.1cd 1.06ab 0.21p 26.66b-e 9.33n
8 27.6c-j 27e-m 3.64a 2.80b-f 52.66b-i 50.7c-j 8.1o-q 8.4l-p 0.90a-e 0.23n-p 18.33f-j 10l-n
9 28.1a-h 27e-m 2.79a-g 2.45e-j 52.8a-i 46.5ij 10.2e-h 9.4h-k 0.704e-h 0.39k-p 18.32f-j 17f-k
10 28.5a-g 28.9a-e 2.57d-j 2.83b-e 59.1a 51.6c-i 10e-h 8.9k-o 0.71e-h 0.25n-p 16.66j-l 11k-n
11 26.8f-m 28.8a-f 2.67c-h 3.15b 56.3a-c 53.9a-g 9.2i-n 10e-h 1.10a 0.47i-m 36.33a 20.66d-i
12 27.1d-l 25mn 2.30h-j 2.56d-j 52.03b-i 52.46b-i 9.6g-j 8.4k-p 0.94a-d 0.22op 29.33bc 9.66mn
13 26.5j-m 25.5k-n 2.31h-j 2.25h-j 48g-j 49.1g-j 9.3i-o 8.9i-o 0.075d-g 0.33l-p 18.66f-j 14.66h-n
14 28.1a-h 25mn 2.66c-h 2.96b-d 50.3c-j 49.7d-j 8.8i-o 8.7j-o 1.02a-c 0.54h-l 30b 23.66b-f
15 29.1a-d 28.6a-f 2.29h-j 2.55d-j 44.66j 52.96a-i 12.2ab 11.3cd 0.906a-e 0.43j-o 21.33d-h 19f-j
16 27.3d-k 25.8j-n 2.40f-j 2.77a-g 50.8c-j 44.5j 9.3h-l 8.8i-o 1a-c 0.34k-p 26.66b-e 15h-n
17 29.9a 28a-h 2.49e-j 2.94b-d 55.3a-e 52.9a-i 9.3h-l 8.3m-p 1.1a 0.32m-p 28.66bc 14i-n
18 27.8c-i 26.8f-n 2.59d-j 2.47e-j 58.1ab 53a-h 10.6d-f 10.1e-h 0.55j-k 0.22op 11k-n 9.66mn
19 27.6c-j 25.5k-n 2.37g-j 2.78b-j 52b-i 48.6f-j 9.6g-j 7.4q .86b-e 0.36k-p 27b-d 15.66h-n
20 25.6k-n 24.5n 2.21j 2.62d-j 47.3h-j 51.03c-i 12.5a 10.2e-h 0.72e-h 0.31m-p 17f-k 13.66j-n

Variance analysis for biochemical traits of durum wheat lines.

Variation source Degree of freedom Protein Carbohydrate Proline Peroxidase Catalase
Genotype 19 3.04** 2.63** 39.93** 4.81** 11.07**
Stress 1 5.05 ns 6.43 ns 12.6 ns 6.53 ns 8.53 ns
Genotype × Stress 19 3.29 ns 9.55 ns 18.8 ns 2.13 ns 8.03 ns
Error 78 0.08 0.091 11.83 0.51 0.58
Coefficient of Variation 13.8% 12.2% 15.2% 8.92% 7.12%

Mean values of the biochemical traits using the Duncan method at the 0.05 significance level.

Genotype Protein Carbohydrate Proline Peroxidase Catalase
1 0.227a-d 62.1b-f 4.79a-d 4.53bc 0.48a-c
2 0.26a 78.3a-d 6.12a 3.89c 0.16a-c
3 0.25ab 85.3a 5.04a-d 4.89a-c 0.64ab
4 0.191cd 72.2a-e 3.79a-e 4.01c 0.42a-c
5 0.228a-d 88.9a 3.07b-e 7.30a 0.66ab
6 0.217a-d 82.8ab 5.03a-d 6.42a-c 0.69a
7 0.186d 53.4ef 1.94e 4.82a-c 0.19a-c
8 0.212a-d 54.3ef 3.63a-e 6.20a-c 0.28a-c
9 0.24a-c 71.5a-e 2.35de 4.22c 0.39a-c
10 0.223a-d 85.2a 5.29a-c 5.26a-c 0.40a-c
11 0.213a-d 73.3a-e 2.47de 6.41a-c 0.71a
12 0.173d 44.3f 2.71ce 6.99ab 0.35a-c
13 0.185d 56.4ef 5.31a-c 5.56a-c 0.12bc
14 0.219a-d 60.5d-f 3.58a-e 6.50a-c 0.69a
15 0.217a-d 71a-e 5.62ab 5.48a-c 0.52ab
16 0.194b-d 82.5a-c 3.04b-e 4.96a-c 0.13bc
17 0.215a-d 82.3a-c 2.55de 4.67a-c 0.24a-c
18 0.179d 58.6d-f 4.75ad 7.31a 0.56ab
19 0.208a-d 61.5c-f 4.47a-e 4.17c 0.80c
20 0.225a-d 70.6a-e 2.36de 5.27a-c 0.62ab

The mean and standard deviation for morphological traits of durum wheat (infected).

Spike Lines Peduncle length Spikelet density Stem length Awn length Grain weight per spike Number of seeds per spike
1 8, 12, 4, 9, 16, 19 µ 26.05 2.73 49.23 8.33 0.29 12.94
σ 0.73 0.19 3.00 0.69 0.07 3.01
2 1, 15, 20, 7, 13, 3, 5, 10, 17, 18 µ 26.95 2.50 51.85 9.64 0.30 13.06
σ 7.66 0.70 14.24 2.83 0.10 4.23
3 2, 6, 14, 11 µ 27.57 2.87 52.09 9.59 0.50 21.83
σ 8.08 0.89 15.25 2.81 0.17 7.24

The mean and standard deviation for morphological traits of durum wheat (control).

Spike Lines Peduncle length Spikelet density Stem length [cm] Awn length
[cm]
Grain weight per spike [gr] Number of seeds per spike
1 16, 19, 12, 14, 3, 13 µ 26.88 2.42 50.22 9.26 0.92 25.83
σ 1.18 0.12 1.63 0.37 0.09 3.86
2 1, 15, 20 µ 27.60 2.25 46.38 12.06 0.78 18.22
σ 1.47 0.03 1.21 0.50 0.09 2.22
3 2, 7, 17, 4, 11, 8 µ 28.49 2.83 55.32 9.81 1.02 26.72
σ 1.42 0.41 2.40 1.10 0.10 6.03
4 5, 18, 6, 10, 9 µ 28.63 2.58 55.87 9.73 0.65 15.73
σ 0.62 0.12 2.55 0.82 0.06 4.02
Table 1 Family tree of studied Durum wheat lines in this study (Mohammadnia et al. 2015).
Table 2 Variance analysis for morphological traits of durum wheat lines (units: cm, gram).

* and ** indicate the significance level at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively, and ns = not significant at the 0.05 probability level.

Table 3 Mean values of the morphological traits, using Duncan’s method at the significance level of P < 0.05 (units: cm, gram).
Table 4 Variance analysis for biochemical traits of durum wheat lines.

* and ** indicate the significance level at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively, and ns = not significant at the 0.05 probability level.

Table 5 Mean values of the biochemical traits using the Duncan method at the 0.05 significance level.

Means in the column followed with the same letter are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05).

Table 6 The mean and standard deviation for morphological traits of durum wheat (infected).
Table 7 The mean and standard deviation for morphological traits of durum wheat (control).