The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Plant Disease Severity Estimated Visually, by Digital Photography and Image Analysis, and by Hyperspectral Imaging
Abstract
Reliable, precise and accurate estimates of disease severity are important for predicting yield loss, monitoring and forecasting epidemics, for assessing crop germplasm for disease resistance, and for understanding fundamental biological processes including co-evolution. Disease assessments that are inaccurate and/or imprecise might lead to faulty conclusions being drawn from the data, which in turn can lead to incorrect actions being taken in disease management decisions. Plant disease can be quantified in several different ways. This review considers plant disease severity assessment at the scale of individual plant parts or plants, and describes our current understanding of the sources and causes of assessment error, a better understanding of which is required before improvements can be targeted. The review also considers how these can be identified using various statistical tools. Indeed, great strides have been made in the last thirty years in identifying the sources of assessment error inherent to visual rating, and this review highlights ways that assessment errors can be reduced—particularly by training raters or using assessment aids. Lesion number in relation to area infected is known to influence accuracy and precision of visual estimates—the greater the number of lesions for a given area infected results in more overestimation. Furthermore, there is a widespread tendency to overestimate disease severity at low severities (<10%). Both interrater and intrarater reliability can be variable, particularly if training or rating aids are not used. During the last eighty years acceptable accuracy and precision of visual disease assessments have often been achieved using disease scales, particularly because of the time they allegedly save, and the ease with which they can be learned, but recent work suggests there can be some disadvantages to their use. This review considers new technologies that offer opportunity to assess disease with greater objectivity (reliability, precision, and accuracy). One of these, visible light photography and digital image analysis has been increasingly used over the last thirty years, as software has become more sophisticated and user-friendly. Indeed, some studies have produced very accurate estimates of disease using image analysis. In contrast, hyperspectral imagery is relatively recent and has not been widely applied in plant pathology. Nonetheless, it offers interesting and potentially discerning opportunities to assess disease. As plant disease assessment becomes better understood, it is against the backdrop of concepts of reliability, precision and accuracy (and agreement) in plant pathology and measurement science. This review briefly describes these concepts in relation to plant disease assessment. Various advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches to disease assessment are described. For each assessment method some future research priorities are identified that would be of value in better understanding the theory of disease assessment, as it applies to improving and fully realizing the potential of image analysis and hyperspectral imagery.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity
White, H. (1980) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912934 · Cited by 25,861
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228029900800204 · Cited by 9,619
A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility.
Lin, L. I.-K. (1989) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532051 · Cited by 8,785
A Simple Test for Heteroscedasticity and Random Coefficient Variation
Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1911963 · Cited by 5,647
Introductory digital image processing: A remote sensing perspective
Jensen, J. R., & Lulla, K. (1987) · Geocarto International · doi:10.1080/10106048709354084 · Cited by 5,006
Encyclopedia of human behavior
(1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-0638 · Cited by 3,234
Kruse, F. A., Lefkoff, A. B., Boardman, J. W., Heidebrecht, K. B., Shapiro, A. T., Barloon, P. J., & Goetz, A. F. H. (1993) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/0034-4257(93)90013-n · Cited by 3,164
Introduction to Plant Disease Epidemiology
Campbell, C. L., & Madden, L. V. (1990) · Andalas University Repository (Andalas University) · Cited by 3,072
Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis: An Introduction
Richards, J. A., & Jia, X. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/3-540-29711-1 · Cited by 2,759
Cited by
Advanced methods of plant disease detection. A review
Martinelli, F., Scalenghe, R., Davino, S., Panno, S., Scuderi, G., Ruisi, P., Villa, P., Stroppiana, D., Boschetti, M., Goulart, L. R., et al. (2015) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-014-0246-1 · Cited by 964
Plant disease identification using explainable 3D deep learning on hyperspectral images
Nagasubramanian, K., Jones, S., Singh, A. K., Sarkar, S., Singh, A., & Ganapathysubramanian, B. (2019) · Plant Methods · doi:10.1186/s13007-019-0479-8 · Cited by 394
Bergsträsser, S., Fanourakis, D., Schmittgen, S., Cendrero-Mateo, M., Jansen, M., Scharr, H., & Rascher, U. (2015) · Plant Methods · doi:10.1186/s13007-015-0043-0 · Cited by 209
Metadata
- Authors
- Bock, C. H., Poole, G. H., Parker, P. E., & Gottwald, T. R.
- Venue
- Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-03-10
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 59-107
- ISSN
- 0735-2689 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-7836
- OpenAlex
- W2004732416
- Cited by
- 964
- References
- 64
- FWCI
- 14.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Plant Disease Severity Estimated Visually, by Digital Photography and Image Analysis, and by Hyperspectral Imaging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07352681003617285
- The paper
- Bock, C. H., Poole, G. H., Parker, P. E., & Gottwald, T. R. (2010). Plant Disease Severity Estimated Visually, by Digital Photography and Image Analysis, and by Hyperspectral Imaging. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352681003617285
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.