Blast disease Forecasting Using an a Neural Network (ANN)

Introduction1

Weather has a very important role to play in the appearance, multiplication and spread of the blast
fungus. Thus, to introduce a forecasting model, it is essential to consider the effects of these factors on
spore population leading to severe disease occurrence. Neural networks are powerful sets of methods
for solving problems of pattern recognition, data analysis and nonlinear control. They include benefits
of high processing speeds and the ability of learning. Also they are complementary to conventional
methods. A feed forward neural network can be considered as a nonlinear mathematical function
which transforms a set of input variables (Fig. 1). A set of parameters called weight do the
transformation and the process of determining these parameters is called learning or training. Once the
weight have been fixed, new data can be processed by the network

Figure 1.0: A simple generalized feedforward neural network.

Artificial neural network (ANN) is one of the useful methods in ecological modeling. It can learn,
adapt and generalize the relations. ANN can be used for multivariate data sets which have nonlinear
dependencies and variables do not have to fit any theoretical distribution. A major aim of many
forecasting systems is to reduce fungicide use, and accurate prediction is important to synchronize the
use of disease control measures to avoid crop losses.

Materials and Methods

Data collection and recording

Weather data including daily maximum and minimum temperatures, daily maximum and
maximum and minimum relative humidity and rainfall were obtained from weather stations.
Weather data and disease incidence were considered as input and output data, respectively. In
this study, multilayer perceptron neural network and regression model were performed. To
evaluate the model efficiency, correlation coefficient and mean square error were used.

(MS 2012-2013) Analysis (Leaf Blast)

120

100
Disease Incidence (%)- Leaf Blast

80

60
predicted
40 observed

20

0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77
-20
Days
(MS 2012-2013) Analysis (Panicle Blast)

120

100
Disease Incidence %- Panicle Blast

80

60
predicted
observed
40

20

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Days of Transplanting
(OS 2013) Analysis- Leaf Blast

120

100
Disease Incidence % - Leaf Blast

80

60
predicted

40 observed

20

0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77

-20
Day of transplanting
(OS 2013) Analysis- Panicle Blast

25
Disease Incidence %- Panicle Blast

20

15

predicted
10
observed

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Days of Transplanting
(MS 2013-2014) Analysis (Panicle Blast)

35

30

25

20
Disease Incidence %- Leaf Blast

15 predicted
observed
10

0
1 4 7 101316192225283134374043464952555861646770737679
-5
Days of Transplanting