Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative evaluation of Bayes, functions, trees, meta, rules and lazy machine learning algorithms for the discrimination of different breeding lines and varieties of potato based on spectroscopic data

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Food Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the usefulness of machine learning algorithms for distinguishing the potato lines and varieties based on selected fluorescence spectroscopic data. The potato tubers belonging to two breeding lines S 617 and S 716 and two varieties Trezor and Sante were examined. The discrimination analysis was performed using machine learning algorithms from different groups. The average accuracies, confusion matrices, and the F-Measure, Precision, PRC (Precision-Recall) Area, ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) Area and MCC (Matthews Correlation Coefficient) values obtained for models built using different algorithms were compared. The breeding lines and varieties of potato were discriminated with very high average accuracies equal up to 95% for the SMO (Sequential Minimal Optimization) algorithms (group of Functions), Naive Bayes (group of Bayes), Hoeffding Tree (group of Trees), Multi Class Classifier (group of Meta), PART (group of Rules), IBk (Instance-Based Learning with parameter k) (group of Lazy). Models developed with the use of selected algorithms allowed for distinguishing some potato lines and varieties with an accuracy of up to 100% and the values of the F-Measure, Precision, PRC Area, ROC Area and MCC reaching 1.000.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Xiong Y, Liu X, You Q, Han L, Shi J, Yang J, Cui W, Zhang H, Chao Q, Zhu Y (2022) Analysis of DNA methylation in potato tuber in response to light exposure during storage. Plant Physiology Biochemistry 170:218–224

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gui Y, Zou F, Zhu Y, Li J, Wang N, Guo L, Cui B (2022) The structural, thermal, pasting and gel properties of the mixtures of enzyme-treated potato protein and potato starch. LWT 154:112882

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sucar S, Carboni MF, Rey Burusco MF, Castellote MA, Massa GA, Monte MN, Feingold SE (2022) Assessment of genetic diversity and relatedness in an andean potato collection from Argentina by high-density genotyping. Horticulturae 8:54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhang H, Xu F, Wu Y, Hu H-h, Dai X-f (2017) Progress of potato staple food research and industry development in China. J Integr Agric 16:2924–2932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu J, Xu X, Liu Y, Rao Z, Smith ML, Jin L, Li B (2021) Quantitative potato tuber phenotyping by 3D imaging. Biosys Eng 210:48–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pradel W, Gatto M, Hareau G, Pandey S, Bhardway V (2019) Adoption of potato varieties and their role for climate change adaptation in India. Clim Risk Manag 23:114–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sood S, Bhardwaj V, Kumar V, Gupta V (2020) BLUP and stability analysis of multi-environment trials of potato varieties in sub-tropical Indian conditions. Heliyon 6:e05525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sanchez PDC, Hashim N, Shamsudin R, Nor MZM (2020) Applications of imaging and spectroscopy techniques for non-destructive quality evaluation of potatoes and sweet potatoes: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 96:208–221

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dai F, Bergholt MS, Benjamin A, Hong T-S, Zhiwei H (2014) Rapid identification of potato cultivars using NIR-excited fluorescence and Raman spectroscopy. Guang Pu Xue Yu Guang Pu Fen Xi 34:677–680

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bouckaert RR, Frank E, Hall M, Kirkby R, Reutemann P, Seewald A, Scuse DJUoW (2016) Hamilton, New Zealand, WEKA manual for version 3-9-1.

  11. Frank E, Hall MA, Witten IH (2016) The WEKA workbench. Online appendix for data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques, Morgan Kaufmann.

  12. Witten IH, Frank E, Hall MA (2011) Introduction to Weka. In: Witten IH, Frank E, Hall MA (eds) Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques, 3rd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Boston, pp 1–665

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sonmez ME, Eczacıoglu N, Gumuş NE, Aslan MF, Sabanci K, Aşikkutlu B (2021) Convolutional neural network-Support vector machine based approach for classification of cyanobacteria and chlorophyta microalgae groups. Algal Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2021.102568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Aslan MF, Sabanci K, Durdu A (2017) Different wheat species classifier application of ANN and ELM. J Multidiscipl Eng Sci Technol 4:8194–8198

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sabanci K (2020) Detection of sunn pest-damaged wheat grains using artificial bee colony optimization-based artificial intelligence techniques. J Sci Food Agric 100:817–824

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Azizi A, Abbaspour-Gilandeh Y, Nooshyar M, Afkari-Sayah A (2016) Identifying potato varieties using machine vision and artificial neural networks. Int J Food Prop 19:618–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Przybył K, Górna K, Wojcieszak D, Czekała W, Ludwiczak A, Przybylak A, Boniecki P, Koszela K, Zaborowicz M, Janczak D (2015) The recognition of potato varieties using of neural image analysis method. In: Seventh International Conference on Digital Image Processing (ICDIP 2015), International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 963116

  18. Ropelewska E (2021) Effect of boiling on classification performance of potatoes determined by computer vision. Eur Food Res Technol 247:807–817

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ebrahimi E, Mollazade K, Arefi A (2012) An expert system for classification of potato tubers using image processing and artificial neural networks. Int J Food Eng. https://doi.org/10.1515/1556-3758.2656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Azizi A, Abbaspour-Gilandeh Y (2016) Identifying irregular potatoes by developing an intelligent algorithm based on image processing. J Agric Sci 22:32–41

    Google Scholar 

  21. Su Q, Kondo N, Li M, Sun H, Al Riza DF (2017) Potato feature prediction based on machine vision and 3D model rebuilding. Comput Electron Agric 137:41–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sabanci K, Aydin C, Unlersen M (2012) Determination of classification parameters of potatoes with the help of image processing and artifical neural network. Iğdır Univ J Inst Sci Technol 2:59–62

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hall MA (1999) Correlation-based feature selection for machine learning. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Waikato

  24. Yigit E, Sabanci K, Toktas A, Kayabasi A (2019) A study on visual features of leaves in plant identification using artificial intelligence techniques. Comput Electron Agric 156:369–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Arlot S, Celisse A (2010) A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection. Stat Surveys 4:40–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Koklu M, Cinar I, Taspinar YS (2021) Classification of rice varieties with deep learning methods. Comput Electron Agric 187:106285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Koklu M, Unlersen MF, Ozkan IA, Aslan MF, Sabanci K (2021) A CNN-SVM study based on selected deep features for grapevine leaves classification. Measurement 188:110425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Powers DM (2020) Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation, arXiv preprint arXiv:.16061

  29. Sabanci K, Aslan MF, Ropelewska E, Unlersen MF (2021) A convolutional neural network-based comparative study for pepper seed classification: analysis of selected deep features with support vector machine. J Food Process Eng. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.13955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ropelewska E, Rutkowski KP (2021) Differentiation of peach cultivars by image analysis based on the skin, flesh, stone and seed textures. Eur Food Res Technol 247:2371–2377

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ropelewska E, Szwejda-Grzybowska J (2021) A comparative analysis of the discrimination of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) based on the cross-section and seed textures determined using image processing. J Food Process Eng 44:e13694

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ropelewska E (2021) The application of machine learning for cultivar discrimination of sweet cherry endocarp. Agriculture 11:6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ropelewska E (2020) The use of seed texture features for discriminating different cultivars of stored apples. J Stored Products Res 88:101668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sabanci K, Aslan MF, Durdu A (2020) Bread and durum wheat classification using wavelet based image fusion. J Sci Food Agric 100(15):5577–5585

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Özkan İA, Köklü M, Saraçoğlu R (2021) Classification of pistachio species using improved k-NN classifier. Prog Nutrition 23(2):e2021044

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cinar I, Koklu M (2019) Classification of rice varieties using artificial intelligence methods. Int J Intell Syst Appl Eng 7(3):188–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sabanci K, Ünlersen M (2016) Different apple varieties classification using kNN and MLP algorithms. Int J Intell Syst Appl Eng 4(1):166–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Koklu M, Sarigil S, Ozbek O (2021) The use of machine learning methods in classification of pumpkin seeds (Cucurbita pepo L.). Genet Resour Crop Evol 68(7):2713–2726

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant Breeding, Maritsa Vegetable Crops Research Institute, Agricultural Academy, 32, Brezovsko shosse St., 4003, Plovdiv, Bulgaria

    Vanya Slavova

  2. Fruit and Vegetable Storage and Processing Department, The National Institute of Horticultural Research, Konstytucji 3 Maja 1/3, 96-100, Skierniewice, Poland

    Ewa Ropelewska

  3. Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Karamanoglu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey

    Kadir Sabanci & Muhammet Fatih Aslan

  4. Department of Breeding, Maritsa Vegetable Crops Research Institute, Agricultural Academy, Brezovsko shosse 32, 4000, Plovdiv, Bulgaria

    Emilia Nacheva

Authors
  1. Vanya Slavova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ewa Ropelewska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kadir Sabanci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muhammet Fatih Aslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emilia Nacheva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ewa Ropelewska.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Compliance with ethics requirements

This study does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Slavova, V., Ropelewska, E., Sabanci, K. et al. A comparative evaluation of Bayes, functions, trees, meta, rules and lazy machine learning algorithms for the discrimination of different breeding lines and varieties of potato based on spectroscopic data. Eur Food Res Technol 248, 1765–1775 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-022-04003-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-022-04003-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation