Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34502839›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Early Detection of Aphid Infestation and Insect-Plant Interaction Assessment in Wheat Using a Low-Cost Electronic Nose (E-Nose), Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and Machine Learning Modeling.

Sigfredo Fuentes, Eden Tongson, Ranjith R Unnithan, Claudia Gonzalez Viejo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Detection of aphid infestation on faba bean (Journal of plant diseases and protection : scientific journal of the German Phytomedical Society (DPG) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Early Detection ofSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sigfredo FuentesDigital Agriculture Food and Wine Group, School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0377-5085
Eden TongsonDigital Agriculture Food and Wine Group, School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Ranjith R UnnithanDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
Claudia Gonzalez ViejoDigital Agriculture Food and Wine Group, School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9207-9307
The University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Bayer Corporation 106027Grains Research and Development Corporation 2062311
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in early insect detection have been reported using digital technologies through camera systems, sensor networks, and remote sensing coupled with machine learning (ML) modeling. However, up to date, there is no cost-effective system to monitor insect presence accurately and insect-plant interactions. This paper presents results on the implementation of near-infrared spectroscopy (NIR) and a low-cost electronic nose (e-nose) coupled with machine learning. Several artificial neural network (ANN) models were developed based on classification to detect the level of infestation and regression to predict insect numbers for both e-nose and NIR inputs, and plant physiological response based on e-nose to predict photosynthesis rate (A), transpiration (E) and stomatal conductance (gs). Results showed high accuracy for classification models ranging within 96.5-99.3% for NIR and between 94.2-99.2% using e-nose data as inputs. For regression models, high correlation coefficients were obtained for physiological parameters (gs, E and A) using e-nose data from all samples as inputs (R = 0.86) and R = 0.94 considering only control plants (no insect presence). Finally, R = 0.97 for NIR and R = 0.99 for e-nose data as inputs were obtained to predict number of insects. Performances for all models developed showed no signs of overfitting. In this paper, a field-based system using unmanned aerial vehicles with the e-nose as payload was proposed and described for deployment of ML models to aid growers in pest management practices.

Indexed as

AphidsElectronic NoseAnimalsInsectaMachine LearningSpectroscopy, Near-InfraredTriticumartificial neural networksphotosynthesis modelingplant water status modelingremote sensingvolatile compounds

Identifiers

PMID34502839
PMCPMC8434653
OpenAlexW3197141273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.