Articulo 3

Multimedia Tools and Applications (2022) 81:367–419
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-11375-0
A comprehensive study of feature extraction techniques

for plant leaf disease detection
Vibhor Kumar Vishnoi1 · Krishan Kumar1 · Brajesh Kumar2
Received: 22 September 2020 / Revised: 21 January 2021 / Accepted: 26 July 2021/

Published online: 10 September 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021
Abstract
Agriculture has been the most primary source of the livelihood of man for thousands of
years. Even today, it provides subsistence to about 50% of the world population. Plant dis-
eases are the serious cause of big losses to crop production every year worldwide. It is nec-
essary to keep the plants healthy at various stages of their growth/development to deal with
the financial losses from plant diseases. Symptoms of infections are visible mainly at plant
leaves; thus leaves are commonly used to detect and identify the diseases. Detecting the
disease through visual observation is itself a challenging task and requires a lot of human
expertise. Image processing techniques along with computational intelligence or soft com-
puting techniques can be used to provide a better assistance for disease detection to the
farmers. A disease in plants can be detected based on its symptoms extracted in the form
of features. Feature extraction techniques thus play a vital role in such systems. The paper
emphasizes on the review of hand-crafted and deep learning based feature extraction with
their merits and demerits. It provides a comprehensive discussion on a variety of image
features such as color, texture, and shape for various disorders in different cultures.
Keywords Computer Vision · Image processing · Plant leaf diseases · Feature extraction ·
Classification · Machine learning
1 Introduction
The state of agriculture in any nation is declared based on the quality and quantity of
agricultural products. In India, almost half of the population is employed in the agricul-
ture sector but it contributes only 17.5% of the GDP [58]. Besides providing livelihood,
* Vibhor Kumar Vishnoi

rs.vibhorkvishnoi@gkv.ac.in
Krishan Kumar
krishan.kumar@gkv.ac.in
Brajesh Kumar
bkumar@mjpru.ac.in
1
Department of Computer Science, Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar,
Uttarakhand 249404, India
2
Department of Computer Science & IT, MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly,
Uttar Pradesh 243006, India
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
368 Multimedia Tools and Applications (2022) 81:367–419
this sector also ensures worldwide food security. But, food security, poverty reduction, and
agriculture-driven growth is at risk due to climate change, pest, conflicts, and emerging
infectious diseases and thus spoil food productivity. Consequently, these factors lead to a
loss of 15-25% of total production every year worldwide [24]. Therefore, efficient and mod-
ern techniques are desired in the agriculture industry to tackle out such a big loss; especially
for disease management and control. Identification of plant diseases through visual obser-
vation, an intellectually-driven process that may contain optical misconception, biases, and
leads to errors also, requires huge human expertise [61]. Meanwhile, computational intel-
ligence with image processing techniques can provide a unique solution to this challenging
task of detecting infections in crops and assist the farmers in better ways [70]. The objec-
tive of the image processing based automatic disease identification system is to aid the
non-specialists, i.e., non-pathologist or non-botanist. A typical architecture of an image-
based plant disease detection system generally consists of five phases- Image Acquisition,
Image Pre-processing, Region of Interest Identification, Feature Extraction and Selection,
and Disease classification. Each phase is equally important and plays a unique role in iden-
tifying the diseases based on the specific symptoms visible on plant leaves. However, the
feature extraction phase is of the utmost importance in the classification of various diseases
by differentiating infection from other similar infections based on the specific symptoms or
visible spots/lesion. It is possible sometimes to have nearly similar visible spots on plant
leaf images which raises the difficulties of such systems. But, the extraction of relevant
features through the most appropriate and applicable scheme can almost solve the issue of
similar visibility of the lesions.
This paper provides a comprehensive study of various features extraction techniques
explored in plant disease detection. Section 2 of the paper presents the generalized archi-
tecture of a conventional plant disease detection system. The common phases of the archi-
tecture are also summarized in this section. In Sect. 3 various feature extraction techniques
explored in plant disease detection has been given and reviewed. Also, a variety of features
such as shape, texture, and color for different type of diseases in various cultures have been
emphasized in this section. The work emphasizes to explore patterns of used feature extrac-
tion techniques such as single techniques or a combination of two or more techniques and
summarized also in the tabular form. Section 4 provides a summary and discussion on
feature extraction and its benefits. The advantages and disadvantages of most commonly
explored feature extraction techniques are also given in a tabular summary in this section.
And, this work is concluded in Sect. 5 with a future research scope.
2 A general architecture of plant disease detection system
Computer vision/image processing with computational intelligence and soft computing

techniques can be utilized in the field of plant pathology [91, 95]. The basic requirement
of such systems is a set of good quality images. For detecting plant diseases using image
processing, a dataset is prepared by capturing or collecting images of the plants’ parts such
as roots, leaves, etc. The captured images may have some undesired characteristics due to
atmosphere, lighting conditions, and device calibration, etc. Therefore, usually images are
preprocessed to make them appropriate for the desired operations. The preprocessing oper-
ations include color space conversion, contrast stretching, scaling, rotation, smoothening,
and background removal, etc. The raw image data may not sometimes be useful for dis-
criminating the healthy and infected leaves or to identify the actual disease as leaves in
different conditions are usually spectrally close. Therefore, feature extraction is performed
13
Multimedia Tools and Applications (2022) 81:367–419 369
over the input images to obtain discriminating information. Different types of features such
as color, texture, and shape, etc. could be useful to detect the specific diseases in the plants.
The set of features is provided as input to the classifier, which labels the leaves as healthy/
non-healthy and/or identifies the disease. The effectiveness and applicability of such sys-
tems highly depends on the classification accuracy. The major feature extraction techniques
proposed in the literature are discussed and summarized in this work. Figure 1 represents a
general setup of the plant disease detection/classification system.
2.1 Image acquisition
The image acquisition phase is dominant because the quality of the acquired images affects
the performance of the disease detection system, whether those images are directly captured
from fields or accessed from the repository. The image quality is influenced by imaging meth-
ods and equipment used, such as the camera and its orientation. The unprocessed images may
have some unwanted characteristics such as artifacts, distortion, shadow, blur, and complex
background, etc. These undesired characteristics of the image tend to hamper the performance
of the system. In addition, the variation in symptoms of a single infection is a serious issue
to be solved by capturing plant images with a range of symptoms variation or adding images
to prepare a true and comprehensive dataset. Symptoms of a single disorder may vary due to
multiple growth stages, genotype of plants, age of leaves, and environmental factors [9].
More often, the researchers used self-created datasets of plant images acquired through
cameras connected with some electronic devices like-drones, mobile phones either in the
controlled laboratory or real-time conditions at crop areas [18, 64, 88]. However, some
researchers worked on some open datasets like- PlantVillage [41, 60]. Also, some research-
ers worked on multiple datasets to generalize their models [42]. Acquiring the images in
real-time conditions leads to the complex background, unbalanced lighting conditions, and
Image Acquisition
Color space conversion,

Background removal,
Noise removal,
Image Pre-processing Histogram equalization
(Laplacian Filter, Mean,
and Median filters)
Region growing based, Edge based,

Thresholding based, Genetic Algorithm,
K-means clustering, Fuzzy c-means,
Saliency based, Weighted segmentation,
Image Segmentation
Expectation Maximization,
(Canny, Prewitt, Sobel, Otsu’s, Grab-cut)
Texture, Color, Shape, Combined
(GLCM, LBP, Haralick,
SURF, HOG, PHOG,
Feature Extraction DWT, HAAR wavelet,
Hu’s moment, Histogram based,
SIFT, Gabor Filter)
SVM, ANN, DT,

Random Forest, CNN,
Disease Classification
KNN, Fuzzy and
Rule based classifier
Fig. 1 General Architecture of the Plant Disease Classification System
13
illumination effects and resulting these factors raise the complexity of the imaging system.
Thus, it requires more awareness about device information like- resolution, the orientation
of camera while capturing the images. The lack of availability of benchmark datasets and
particular choice of crop/culture motivate the researchers to work with self-created plant
image datasets.
2.2 Image pre‑processing
Often, the image sets are prepared and captured in real time conditions, containing unde-
sired information such as shadow, noise, unspecified distortion, and complex backgrounds.
Thus, image pre-processing is essentially required at lower level of abstraction. The pre-
processing step aims to reduce the impact of undesirable characteristics. The preprocessed
image is more suitable for further processing. Also, operations such as cropping and resiz-
ing can be used to reduce the complexity such complex systems.
The applicability of basic pre-processing operations such as color space conversion, his-
togram equalization, contrast enhancement, cropping, noise removal, and smoothing depends
on type of acquired images. Some of the operation utilized for image pre-processing are listed
below:
• The color space conversion is used to increase results through a specific color space and
to meet the prominent image properties. Various well known color spaces such as HSV,
RGB, HSI, L*u*v*, L*a*b*, CIELuv, and YCbCr are available and explored generally.
• The RGB color space is device dependent and appropriate to display systems but
high correlation between channels reduces its applicability [31].
• The HSI color space is more suitable for color extraction as hue value is invariant to
shading, shadows and it masked image background.
• HSV color model is widely used in the studies of plant disease detection/classifica-
tion as it provides colors similar to humans’ perception and close to their visual pat-
terns [63].
• The color model L*a*b* improves segmentation results. Also, its visual perception
has a similar appearance as of human eye and requires only two thresholds for a and
b channels to split the chrominance information [41].
• The CIELuv model is popularly used in visual industries such a television. It rep-
resents the color through its chromaticity diagram. This is device independent and
perceptually non-uniform.
• Noise is one of the prominent factors present in the real-time captured images. There-
fore, noise reduction is one of the common operations associated with plant disease
detection methods. A number of noise elimination techniques such as mean filter [40],
median filters [99], Gaussian smoothing [8], and Weiner filter [70] are utilized in previ-
ous studies.
• Histogram equalization is used to improve the images before segmentation. It improves
contrast of leaf images in plant disease detection system [43].
• Contrast stretching is used to normalize the intensity values of an image over the entire
range [1]. It can be understand as spread of image histogram.
• Sharpening is used to find a sharper appearance of an image. Image sharpening empha-
sized on texture of the image and to increase the focus. The Laplacian filter is used for
image sharpening in a study of plant disease detection [7].
13
2.3 Region of interest identification
Image segmentation is the process to automatically identify region of interest (ROI); find-
ing the ROI aims to separate the lesion area from the uninfected regions. The segmented
version of the image is more relevant to recognize the infected and healthy leaf area sepa-
rately. There are various segmentation techniques such as edge detection-based [78], region
growing-based [91], and thresholding-based [66, 81, 85] methods. The selection of par-
ticular approach depends on given dataset and application. Edge-based and threshold based
segmentation are the popular traditional approaches used in the applications of plant dis-
ease detection. These techniques are based on the pattern discontinuities in images and
used with images having good contrast among objects. The edge-based methods are influ-
enced by high number of edges and existence of noise in the image. In the threshold-based
techniques, the essential spatial information is left unconsidered because these methods
work on histogram peaks. Thus, high color heterogeneity (variation) present in the plant
leaf image remains undetected sometimes. The selection of threshold value is crucial,
which may cause a poor segmentation, in this technique. Recently, soft computing based
approaches have also been used for image segmentation. These techniques performed bet-
ter than traditional approaches [8, 90]. Genetic algorithm is used for segmentation by [91].
Pujari et al. [72] and Pantazi et al. [64] exploited grab-cut algorithm for lesion segmenta-
tion. A unique weighted-segmentation process optimized through high dimensional color
transform was used by [86].
Clustering is another important technique for ROI identification. K-means clustering is
successfully employed to obtain ROI in the plant leaf images [84]. K-means clustering is
found to be more efficient and suitable than edge-based and thresholding-based methods
when more than one diseases’ symptoms are present in leaf images [34]. Shinde et al. [87]
tested Sobel filter, Canny operator, Prewitt filter, and k-means clustering to identify ROI
and found that k-means performs better than other techniques. But, k-means clustering is
sensitive to number of clusters and initial centroid. Also, their assignment is difficult due
to the visual complexities in the infected leaf images. Thus, ROI is also identified by a
combination of k-means and other techniques. Canny edge operator was used along with
k-means clustering by [77] to identify ROI. Otsu’s thresholding and k-means clustering
were applied by [43]. A researcher preferred fuzzy c-means clustering [8] for the segmen-
tation of infected area. In plant disease detection, the image segmentation process faces
several challenges [9], as follows:
• Complex and busy backgrounds, containing elements such as soil, pots and elements
with significant green color such as stem, other plants or leaves, in captured images.
• Illumination variation due to specular lighting and shadows.
• Angle of image capture such as slanted angles and leaves with more orientation ranges.
• Presence of disease symptoms with improper boundaries and poor edges.
Identification of ROI is crucial as it enables feature extraction from the desired and relevant
portion of the leaf image.
2.4 Feature extraction and selection
Image feature is a piece of information related to a content/object which helps to recognize

it uniquely. A suitable class label is allotted to characterize the object through its features.
13
The key role of feature extraction in plant disease detection is to learn the features auto-
matically. Mostly, the attributes such as shape, texture, and color of plant leaf images are
utilized to detect plant infections. Based on these attributes, the appropriate algorithm for
feature extraction is need to applied correctly. Deciding best attribute among a set of attrib-
utes and choosing a good extraction technique are challenging tasks. The common facts
about the feature extraction process are listed below:
• Color features basically defines the visual characteristics of an object. It represent the
objects in through different wavelength values. Color histogram and color co-occurrence
matrix defines the color model in mean, kurtosis, skewness, and standard deviation.
• Texture features represents the surface properties of the object such as uniformity,
entropy, energy, contrast, correlation, etc. And, the texture patterns can be accessed
through LBP, Gabor filter, and GLCM techniques.
• Shape features represent the image based on the contour of the object. These can be
measured by orientation, area, eccentricity, and centroid, etc. Hu’s moments can be uti-
lized for this purpose.
• A combination of color, texture, shape attributes can increase the performance of the
disease classification system. Sometimes, a single kind of attribute may not be sufficient
to define the object correctly. Also, MPEG-7 based visual descriptors [92] can be uti-
lized for feature extraction as it provides texture, color, and shape features all together.
In addition, deep learning based feature extraction could be another choice over hand-
crafted features [45].
All the features from the feature set are always not relevant to single application. Irrelevant
attributes may increase the computation complexity and overfitting of the classification algo-
rithms. Therefore, finding the most suitable features among available set of features is crucial
in ML-based applications. The entropy, covariance, and scores of features calculated using
Principle Component Analysis (PCA) can be used to solve this problem [86]. Other selection
techniques include information gain, relief-F method, fuzzy curve and surface methods [30,
93, 105]. In addition, fuzzy histogram [29, 47] is used for feature selection. Moreover,
particle swarm optimization (PSO) and genetic algorithm (GA) are also employed for select-
ing the suitable features [78]. Section 3 presents a detailed review and discussion of various
feature extraction methods applied for detecting different kind of plant diseases.
2.5 Disease identification/classification
The disease identification step is the most leading phase of leaf image-based automatic dis-
ease identification systems. The classification strategies can generally be classified into two
broad categories: supervised and unsupervised. The supervised classification needs prior
information about the healthy/unhealthy leaves in the form of labeled samples whereas unsu-
pervised techniques do not require it. The performance of supervised classifiers highly rely
on the quality and quantity of training set. The unsupervised classifiers tend to explore the
natural bonding of the objects to assign them labels. Usually, supervised classifiers provide
more accurate results. Unsupervised classification is preferred if labeled data samples are not
available. In addition, semi-supervised learning is another approach for classification that
uses both type of samples, i.e. labeled and unlabeled. The classifier is supposed to differenti-
ate healthy and infected leaves and should also be able to diagnose the plant infections.
13
Classification techniques such as k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), support vector machine

(SVM), and artificial neural network (ANN) are most widely used in disease detection appli-
cation. In plant disease detection models such as feed-forward neural network, error back-
propagation networks, Kohonen’s self-organizing map, and multi-layer perceptron (MLP) are
used prominently among different ANN models. In addition, the fuzzy logic based systems
such as rule-based system, Sugeno fuzzy inference, and adaptive neuro fuzzy inference sys-
tem (ANFIS) are also used for plant disorder management and control [53, 80].
Recently, deep learning based classification methods have achieved remarkable success
with accuracy better than other methods [19]. Convolutional neural network (CNN) can be a
good alternative to other classifiers for detecting diseases based on leaf images. Mohanty et al.
[60] utilized pre-trained CNN models such as GoogLeNet, AlexNet to recognize plant diseases
in multiple cultures using PlantVillage dataset through transfer learning approach. Generally,
CNN can be used in two different ways: one for feature extraction and another for classifica-
tion [42]. In deep feature extraction using CNN, features are extracted at multiple combination
of convolution and pooling layers of its layered architecture and then these features can be
used with any other classification algorithm. Whereas, in classification using CNN the high
level features extracted through various layers are utilized by CNN itself at fully connected
layers [18]. However, CNN requires a setup of high computational resources.
3 A review of feature extraction methods
The visual similarities in symptoms of different disorders in a single or in multiple cultures

raise the complexity of the feature extraction stage in management and control of infections
[13]. Therefore, deciding the feature extraction technique and selection of features suitable
for a particular application are crucial and challenging. Deep learning based feature extrac-
tion has provided a solution to this problem. Deep learning models such as CNN learn high
level features through a layered architecture. In this section, various feature extraction tech-
niques are discussed and reviewed. Various attributes, either single or in combination, are
explored to detect the diseases using image processing and machine learning. This section
presents all the attributes with corresponding relevant feature extraction algorithms.
3.1 Texture features extraction
Texture is a dominant property for a particular area of an image when its small-area patch
contains a high tonal variation [33]. It basically represents the color patterns and spatial
arrangements in the image. Light, contrast, distance, and orientation are the factors influ-
encing perception of texture. Image texture can be represented through various parameters
such as entropy, contrast, skewness, variance, homogeneity, etc. The major feature extrac-
tion techniques for texture description are reviewed in this section.
3.1.1 Gray level co‑occurrence matrices
Gray level co-occurrence matrices (GLCM) is a statistical technique that provides second-
order measures of image texture [32]. The features extracted using this technique are also
known as the Haralick features. The GLCM is a 2-D square matrix of order N, where N
represents the number of gray levels of an image. Basically, it provides a count of pixels
13
with value i present at a particular position from the pixel with a value j [28]. A matrix G
representing GLCM is specified by the relative frequency P(i, j|d, 𝜃) between neighbor-
ing pixels having gray tone values i and j are at an angle 𝜃 and separated by distance d.
Thus, G is a function of direction and distance. Assuming, an image I contains Nx and Ny
pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions and Nz shows the quantized gray value of
each pixel. Thus, for the spatial domain Dx = {1,2,3,......,Nx } and the vertical domain Dy =
{1,2,3,......,Ny }, the set of quantized gray values is represented by G = {1,2,3,......,Nz }. The
image I can be viewed as a function to assign some gray values to pixels at specific loca-
tions. For neighboring pixels at locations (s, t) and (u, v) , the GLCM matrix is calculated at
4-orientations (0◦ , 45◦ , 90◦ , 135◦ ) as follows:
{ ( )
P(i, j|d, 0◦ ) =# ((s, t), (u, v)) ∈ Dx × Dy |
(|s − u| = 0, |t − v| = d), I(s, t) = i, (1)
}
I(u, v) = j ,
{ ( )
P(i, j|d, 45◦ ) =# ((s, t), (u, v)) ∈ Dx × Dy
|(|s − u| = d, |t − v| = −d)
(2)
or(|s − u| = −d, |t − v| = d),
}
I(s, t) = i, I(u, v) = j ,
{ ( )
P(i, j|d, 90◦ ) =# ((s, t), (u, v)) ∈ Dx × Dy
|(|s − u| = d, |t − v| = 0), (3)
}
I(s, t) = i, I(u, v) = j ,
{ ( )
P(i, j|d, 135◦ ) =# ((s, t), (u, v)) ∈ Dx × Dy |
(|s − u| = d, |t − v| = d)or
(4)
(|s − u| = −d, |t − v| = −d),
}
I(s, t) = i, I(u, v) = j
where # represents the set cardinality. Using Eqs. 1 to 4, 14 Haralick features are obtained.
Range and mean of all these 14 features are averaged over above four values, which pro-
vides total 28 features. The Haralick features [32] are defined using the following equations.
1. Correlation
∑ ∑ � ̇�
i j ij p(i, j) − 𝜇x 𝜇y
f1 = (5)
𝜎x 𝜎y
where p(i, j) shows the normalized value of P(i, j) and 𝜇x , 𝜇y represent mean values, 𝜎x , 𝜎y
represent standard deviations for pixels in x and y directions.
2. Contrast
13
∑
Nz −1 {∑ ∑
Nz Nz }
f2 = n2
p(i, j) || ∀|i − j| = n (6)
i=0 i=1 j=1
3. Variance
∑∑
f3 = (1 − 𝜇)2 p(i,
̇ j)
(7)
i j
4. Angular Second Moment

∑∑{
f4 = p(i, j)}2
(8)
i j
5. Sum Average
∑
2Nz
f5 = ipx+y (i) (9)
i=2
6. Inverse Difference Moment

∑∑ 1
f6 = p(i,
̇ j) (10)
i j 1 + (i − j)2
7. Sum Entropy
∑
2Nz
{ }
f7 = − px+y (i) log px+y (i) (11)
i=2
8. Sum Variance:
∑
2Nz
( )2
f8 = i − f7 px+y (i) (12)
i=2
where, f7 is the sum entropy and calculated using Eq. 11.

9. Entropy
∑∑
f9 = − p(i, j) log (p(i, j))
(13)
i j
10. Difference Entropy
∑
Nz−1
{ }
f10 = − px−y (i) log px−y (i) (14)
i=0
11. Difference Variance

( )
f11 = 𝜎 2 px−y (15)
12. Difference Entropy
13
∑
Nz−1
{ }
f11 = − px−y (i) log px−y (i) (16)
i=0
13. Correlation Information

HXY − HXY1
f12 = (17)
max {HX, HY}
Here, HX and HY represent entropy values of px , py and,

∑∑
HXY = − p(i, j) log (p(i, j))
(18)
i j
∑∑ { }
HXY1 = − p(i, j) log px (i)py (j)
(19)
i j
14. Correlation Information
f13 = (1 − exp[−2.0(HXY2 − HXY)])0.5 (20)
where HXY is calculated using Eq. 18 and HXY2 is defined below:

∑∑ { }
HXY2 = − px (i)py (j) log px (i)py (j)
i j
15. Maximal Correlation coefficient
f14 = (Second largest eigenvalue value of R)0.5
where
∑ p(i, k)p(j, k)
R(i, j) =
k
px (i)py (k)
Deshapande et al. [23] determined GLCM features to classify fungal diseases such as com-
mon rust and northern leaf blight of corn. The set of GLCM features was classified with
SVM and k-NN. Since corn leaf image contains good texture primitives, GLCM features
could be extracted in all orientations to improve performance of the system. Gharge and
Singh [28] extracted 7 Haralick features from 30 images of soybean plant to classify the
diseases in three categories using a 3-layer EBP neural network. The work was based on a
few soybean images. Sharif et al. [86] has used 14 Haralick features combined with other
features to identify the disorders such as anthracnose, melanose, citrus canker, black spot,
scab, and citrus greening in a study through citrus plant leaf images. In another study, Abed
and Esmaeel [1] employed GLCM method to prepare a set of 13 Haralick features from
bean leaf images. A remarkable accuracy was achieved on a small dataset. Kaur et al. [41]
performed a research on diagnosis of infections such as septoria leaf blight, downy mildew,
and frog eye in soybean crop and Haralick features with SVM classifier were used. They
also proposed to use a set of combined color and texture feature descriptions. Seven GLCM
features have been utilized in a comparative study of potato disease classification [65] using
SVM, Random Forest, and ANN. A disease centric study irrespective of culture is carried
out using GLCM features by [73]. In their work, ANN and SVM were used to classify the
13
infections by utilizing the texture features such as homogeneity, energy, contrast, entropy,
inverse difference moment, and correlation. GLCM features provide a good measure for the
variation in patterns of pixel values of the image due to its ability to investigate a pixel and
its relation with the neighbor pixels at a particular orientation and distance.
3.1.2 Local Binary Pattern
Local binary pattern (LBP) is a gray-scale visual descriptor that measures binary patterns
in a circular neighborhood [62]. It provides the correlation among all the pixels inside a
neighborhood. It is a non-parametric operator, which defines the local spatial details of
an image. The LBP operator assign a binary value, 0 or 1, as a label to all the pixels in
neighborhood thresholded by the center pixel value [52]. If the difference of gray levels
of center pixel and a pixel from its neighborhood is positive the label is 1 and otherwise 0.
The corresponding pixels’ weight is multiplied to the thresholded binary pattern and sum
of all such multiplication is taken as the LBP code [36]. The LBP code can directly be con-
sidered as a feature in the form of histogram.
The LBP code for a pixel (i, j) of a grayscale image I with dimensions M × N can be
determined [48] as
∑
n−1
( )
LBPP,R (i, j) = s pn − pc 2n (21)
n=0
{
1, t ≥ 0;
s(t) =
0, t ≤ 0. (22)
where P shows the number of pixels in the neighborhood of radius R, pc and pn represent
the gray level of center pixel and pixel with nth index inside the neighborhood respectively.
The LBP histogram can be prepared using the following expression.
∑ ∑ (
M N
)
HLBP (k) = h LBPP,R (i, j), k ;k ∈ [0, … , L]
i=1 j=1
where, the symbol L represents the maximum value of LBP patterns and k represents the
pixel for which LBP histogram is to prepared, in this way it incorporates to several values
starting from zero to maximum value of LBP patterns. h(u, v) is decided as below:
{
1, if u = v;
h(u, v) =
0, otherwise. (23)
LBP is used to analyze local texture features and not influenced by illumination or varia-
tion in gray level [64]. Thus, LBP is one of the most popular approaches for texture analy-
sis and feature extraction. Pantazi et al. [64] used LBP features and SVM classifier to iden-
tify the disorders such as black rot, powdery mildew, downy mildew in assorted cultures
using infected leaf images. An automatic disease detection model was developed by [89]
for investigating presence of rust infection through LBP features of microscopic images of
lentil crop leaf. The input image was divided into numerous regions and LBP was applied
region-wise to extract features. Zhang and Meng [101] used LBP in 8 directions to clas-
sify citrus canker disease using AdaBoost classifier and achieved an accuracy of 85.25%.
Dubey and Jalal [25] worked on apple fruit leaf images to classify scab, rot, blotch, and
13
healthy images using a LBP based texture feature with P = 8 and R = 1 . The detection
accuracy increases when LBP is combined with other features such as color features and
Gabor filters [83, 101]. There are some LBP variants such as complete LBP (CLBP), local
ternary patterns (LTP), and opponent color LBP (OCLBP).
1. Local Ternary Pattern

Local ternary pattern technique is an extension of LBP [48], where center pixel and
its neighboring pixels can be in three distinct zones. Similar to LBP, LTP features are
prepared by comparing the neighboring pixels with three distinct center pixels of three
different zones located above, below, and within the thresholded region. From these
three zones the histogram of LTP can be obtained. The LTP operator LTPP,R (i, j) can be
defined as follows:
∑
n−1
( )
LTPP,R (i, j) = s pn − pc 3n (24)
n=0
where
⎧ −1, u ≤ i − t;
⎪ c
s(u) = ⎨ 0, − t < u < ic + t; (25)
⎪ 1, u ≥ ic + t.
⎩
where t is a threshold. Samajpati and Degadwala [83] used LTP to detect rot, scab,
and blotch diseases in apple plants with RF classifier and achieved 60% accuracy.
2. Complete Local Binary Pattern
The complete local binary pattern method is another form of LBP that is stable against
rotation and illumination. It considers the gray level of center pixel (c) , sign (s) , and
magnitude (m) to generate the code for LBP. The local difference of gray level of center
pixel and its neighboring pixel is computed as dn = pn − pc , generating a set of all such
difference values for a complete neighborhood defined by{d1 , d2 , … , dn−1 } . The dif-
ference vector [d1 , d2 , … , dn−1 ] defines the local structure of the image. The difference
vector is robust to change in illumination. Further, it is( decomposed
) to obtain the sign
and magnitude vectors dn = sn ∗ mn , where sn = Sign dn and mn = |dn | respectively.
The sign and magnitude vectors can be given as [s0 , s, … , sn−1 ] and [m0 , m1 , … , mn−1 ]
respectively. CLBP is a combination of CLBPs , CLBPm and CLBPc [25]. CLBPs provides
the sign details of local differences similar to basic LBP. Whereas, magnitude informa-
tion is provided by CLBPm as follows:
∑
n−1
( )
CLBPm = s mn , t 2n , (26)
n=0
{
1, u ≥ t;
s(u, t) =
0, u ≤ t. (27)
The threshold t generally represents image mean value Similarly, the center pixel gray
scale level can be obtained using CLBPc as
13
{
( ) ( ) 1, u ≥ tI ;
CLBPc = s pc , tI ;s u, tI =
0, u ≤ tI . (28)
and tI represents is a threshold, which is generally defined by average intensity of the

gray image. Dubey and Jalal [25] developed a detection system using CLBP for dis-
eases in apple.
3. Opponent Color Local Binary Pattern
OCLBP is a joint color-texture feature extraction approach [35], which compares
gray scale and color texture features. The color pairs such as Red-Green, Yellow-
Blue are oppositely perceived by human and known as opponent colors. The oppo-
nent color patters can be found by applying LBP on center and neighborhood pixels
having
( (opposite) color (channels [52].
)) A texture T is considered as a distribution
( ) of
T ≈ t s pn − pc , … , s pn−1 − pc−1 . The local texture of image around R xc , yc can
be defined as follows:
∑
n−1
( )
LBPP,R(xc ,yc ) = s pn − pc 2n (29)
n=0
{
1, x ≥ 0;
s(u) =
0, x ≤ 0. (30)
Thus, the image texture can be found approximately as

( )
T = t LBPP,R(xc ,yc ) (31)
Waghmare et al. [96] used OCLBP technique to detect disorders such as downy mil-
dew, black rot, and powdery mildew in grape crop.
3.1.3 Scale invariant feature transform
The scale invariant feature transform (SIFT) [49] method provides local key features of
objects that are unchanged against scale transformations. A feature vector is generated
through extracting a set of local keypoints from any given image. SIFT technique is also
used for object matching. The keypoints generated from a reference image are matched
with the features of the new image of same object and the Euclidean distance among the
keypoints of both images is calculated to check this similarity. The process of finding local
features from an image includes three main steps: locating scale-space maxima and key
points, assignment of orientation, and the key point descriptor. SIFT provides the abili-
ties to generated a huge set of keypoints from a very small region [69]. The SIFT features
define a local region that is invariant to scale, illumination, noise, and orientation [21].
Relatively these features are easy to extract but high dimensionality is an issue that leads to
increased computational complexity.
1. Locating scale-space maxima and key points

The location of keypoints, stable to the scale variation, in an image is achieved by
searching across all the scale possibilities. The function used to locate keypoints is
13
known as scale-space and denoted by L(u, v, 𝜎) [50]. It can be described by the convolu-
tion of the Gaussian kernal G(u, v, 𝜎)and the image I(u, v) such that
L(u, v, 𝜎) = G(u, v, 𝜎) ∗ I(u, v), (32)
where ‘*’ shows convolution between u and v, and 𝜎 is the standard deviation of differ-
ent scales, and
2 2
1 − u +v2
G(u, v, 𝜎) = exp 2𝜎 (33)
2𝜋𝜎 2
To identify the key points in Difference of Gaussians (DOG) D(u, v, 𝜎) as a local min-
ima or maxima, each point is compared with its neighbors and pixels in the above and
below scaled images with respect to their locations. The DOG is calculated as follows:
D(u, v, 𝜎) = L(u, v, K𝜎) − L(u, v, 𝜎), (34)
where, the constant K separates the two successive smoothed images. Consequently,
the point is selected for a key point entry if it is different to the current key point.
2. Assignment of Orientation
One or more directions are assigned to each key point depending on local gradient
direction. Through this assignment, rotation invariant key points are prepared. The gradi-
ent magnitude M(u, v) and orientation R(u, v) for the smoothed image can be calculated
at a scale of 𝜎 using the following expressions:
{
M(u, v) = (L(u + 1, v) − L(u − 1, v))2
}1 (35)
2
+ (L(u, v + 1) − L(u, v − 1))2 ,
L(u, v + 1) − L(u, v − 1)
R(u, v) = tan−1 (36)
L(u + 1, v) − L(u − 1, v)
A histogram of orientations is prepared using the gradient orientation of neighboring
points with respect to the key point within a particular region. Since, peaks in these
histograms match with the effective directions of local gradients. Therefore, numerous
key points can be prepared at the same location, scale, and different orientation using
the peaks having similar magnitude at that location.
3. Key point Descriptor
In this step, the feature descriptor vector is prepared for each key which has a stable
scale, orientation, and location. Possibly, the local region of an image can be described
invariant to scale, orientation, and locality. A n × n grid is used to obtain the orientation
histograms in r directions with width n. The grid is placed over the image centered at
the key. In this way, key descriptor vector of size rn2 is prepared.
Dandawate and Kokare [22] used SIFT key features and diagnosed the pest disorders in soy-
bean crop using two class SVM; they achieved relatively good result for a small leaf image
dataset. Bashir et al. [10] has utilized the texture features extracted from rice crop leaf images
through SIFT method and proposed a detection/classification model for infections such as
false smut, bacterial blight, and brown spot. Kusumo et al. [46] explored SIFT technique for
corn crop disease detection through various classifiers and prepared a set of 100-keypoints
13
in 12800-direction. Aduwo et al. [2] also prepared a set of descriptors to investigate presence

of mosaic infection in cassava crop through multiple classifiers. Moreover, Mohan et al. [59]
employed 7 key features extracted using SIFT approach to identify infections such as bacte-
rial blight, brown spot, and leaf blast present in paddy crop at early stage. A variant of SIFT
known as dense SIFT (DSIFT) was also proposed [69] that uses a dense grid of images. It
treats every pixel as an image key points. Thus, detection of key points is not necessary for
DSIFT. It can select more keypoints and scale in the image at a particular location comparable
to SIFT technique. Pires et al. [69] used DSIFT technique to detect and diagnose diseases of
soybean crop using SVM and achieved classification rate of 90%.
3.1.4 Gabor filters
The Gabor filter technique is used to analyze local texture features of images and inspired by
human visual system. Gabor filters provide features at different scales and orientations which
is implemented based on Gabor wavelet and Gaussian window [26]. Gabor wavelet is a win-
dowed fast Fourier transform and the size of the window is defined using Gaussian function.
The 2-D Gabor filter can be defined in generalized form of Gabor wavelet as follows:
( )
u2 v2
1 − +
G(s, t, f , 𝜃) = exp 2𝜎s2 2𝜎t2
cos (2𝜋uf + 𝜓) (37)
2𝜋𝜎s 𝜎t
where
u =s cos 𝜃 + t sin 𝜃 (38)
v = − s sin 𝜃 + t cos 𝜃 (39)

and 𝜃 is the orientation, f denotes the frequency, 𝜓 denotes the phase, and 𝜎 denotes the
range of the wavelet on horizontal axis. It can produce opponent and uni-chrome two
kind of feature set [35] depending upon type of base bands, i.e. multiple or single spectral
respectively. Kulkarni and R.K. [44] employed Gabor filters to extract the uni-chrome fea-
tures from pomegranate plant leaf images and attempted to identify the infections such as
alternaria, bacterial blight, and anthracnose. Another disease detection system for apple
[36] used Gabor filters in combination with LBP and Haralick features. Kaur et al. [41]
worked on soybean diseases by combining Gabor features and color features with an intent
to improve detection rate. In addition, Gabor transform has been found as an effective and
robust way for texture analysis in a research work proposed by [71]. Furthermore, Zhang
and Meng [101] also extracts Gabor features in 6 scale and 8 orientations to find canker
infection in citrus plants through AdaBoost classifier.
3.1.5 Discrete wavelet transform
The discrete wavelet decomposes an image into different sub-bands through a family of
orthonormal functions that are derived from mother wavelet after its translation and dila-
tion process. The 1-D DWT [15] can be defined as
∑
B−1
W𝜓 (m, n) = ⋆
f (t)𝜓m,n (t) (40)
t=0
13
where W𝜓 (m, n) is DWT coefficient, f(t) is image signal, ‘ ⋆ ’ represents the complex conju-
gate, 𝜓m,n (t) is wavelet basis defined for dyadic DWT as
𝜓m,n (t) = 2−m∕2 𝜓(2−m t − n) (41)
where 𝜓 denotes mother wavelet, 2m and n denote scale and translation parameters respec-
tively. There are a number of different kinds of mother wavelets and wavelet bases includ-
ing Haar, Symlets family, Daubechies family, and Biorthogonal family, etc. DWT has the
ability to extract features at different scales and analyze multi-resolution images. A set of
lowpass and highpass filters can be used to represent the wavelet basis. The output of low-
pass is called approximation (L), while output of high-pass filters is known as detail (H)
coefficient. The 2-D DWT is the extended form of 1-D DWT applied on the columns of
sub-band images L and H. Consequently, four sub band images LL, HL, LH, and HH are
produced. DWT coefficients can be used to extract a variety of features or these coefficients
can themselves also be used as features.
Kaur et al. [41] used DWT for feature extraction in their study of soybean crop dis-
ease diagnosis and detection through support vector machine. For each 2-D DWT, mean
and standard deviation are evaluated to prepare a 40-D feature set to recognize the soy-
bean diseases. In a research, Bernardes et al. [14] proposed to use wavelet energy as a
texture feature extracted from a decomposed DWT at level-1. The four different features
prepared from four regions of decomposed DWT were used to detect the infections such
as bacterial blight, ramularia, and ascochyta blight in cotton plants using SVM. Moreo-
ver, DWT feature based texture analysis is also utilized in a few studies to identify vari-
ous disorders in multiple cultures [20, 72, 80].
Haar wavelet based texture analysis is also performed by [23] in a research work
to detect fungal infections in maize crop and the remarkable performance is achieved
when used with SVM. The Haar wavelet decomposed RGB leaf images and the hori-
zontal, vertical and diagonal coefficients are utilized as features. In addition, a research
proposed to use a set features prepared through rectangular Haar component to detect/
recognize diseases in paddy crop using AdaBoost classifier [59].
3.1.6 Speed‑up robust features
The speed-up robust features (SURF) is a novel rotation and scale invariant feature
descriptor, which is partially inspired by SIFT descriptor [12]. This technique is com-
paratively finer then SIFT in view of computation, repeatability, robustness, and distinc-
tiveness. The interested key points and descriptors can be generated by going through
the following process [69]
1. Key value localization

The key points are localized using the Hessian-matrix for the approximation since
it is faster and good in respect of accuracy and computation time. The Hessian-matrix
H(u, v, 𝜎) at scale 𝜎 can be prepared as follows:
[ ]
L (u, v, 𝜎) Luv (u, v, 𝜎)
H(u, v, 𝜎) = uu
Luv (u, v, 𝜎) Lvv (u, v, 𝜎)
, (42)
13
The value for Luu (u, v, 𝜎) is computed by convoluting the 2nd order Gaussian derivative
𝜕2
𝜕u2
g(𝜎) on an image I(m, n) at pixel p(u, v) and Luv (u, v, 𝜎) , Lvv (u, v, 𝜎) are calculated
similarly . The determinant of Hessian determines the blob response at scale 𝜎 and
location (x, y) , and the quality of blob response tells about the significance of a pixel inside
the image.
2. Assignment of Orientation
Each key point has assigned a reproducible direction to make it rotation invariant. The
responses of Haar wavelet are collected at current scale s in horizontal and vertical both
directions. These response vectors are prepared from the Gaussian weighted responses
centered at interested pixel, simultaneously the dominant orientation generated by add-
ing all the responses inside a sliding direction window. This sum of response is treated
as a vector which is used further for the descriptor.
3. Key point Descriptor
It is obtained from a square region which is located around the key value and oriented
with key point direction.
�∑ This region is divided into
� the subareas and for these subareas a
∑ ∑ ∑
feature vector r, r = du , dv , �du �, �dv � is estimated that provides the underly-
ing intensity information of these subareas.
Due to its benefit in feature extraction, this technique is widely used in several studies of
crop disease identification. In a study, Aduwo et al. [2] has prepared a set of SURF features
extracted from cassava crop leaf images to recognize various infections. The SURF
method is also used in a study of detecting infections such as northern leaf blight, common
rust, and gray leaf spot in corn crop [46]. They prepared a set of 200 keypoints in 12800
dimensions from PlantVillage leaf image dataset and stated that SURF results competi-
tively better then SIFT or DSIFT. Moreover, Pires et al. [69] also utilized SURF and com-
pared the results of multiple classifiers in terms of correct classification rate (CCR). The
classification rate is slightly considerable.
3.1.7 Histogram of oriented gradients
The histogram of oriented gradients (HOG) technique was utilized first time for pedestrian
detection in still images and later [21] used this method to detect objects such as human
and animal in the images. This technique provides information about the occurrences of
orientation gradients in ROI or a local area. The computation of gradient G and its direc-
tion 𝜃 can be expressed in a generalized form as
( )1
|G| = G2 + G2 2 ; (43)
| | x y
Gx
𝜃 = tan−1 (44)
Gy
where Gx and Gy are the gradient in X and Y directions respectively. An image split into
several square cells/regions with predefined size. A histogram is generated for every cell
depending on the quantity and the direction of bins. The histogram of gradients is obtained
by separating the weighted choice into the bins for every direction. Every pixel inside a cell
makes a weighted choice for an orientation histogram with respect to G and 𝜃 . For a group
of cells, histograms are normalized and used together as a HOG feature vector. The HOG
13
blocks can be normalized [21] as follows. Suppose u is a descriptor vector, which is not
normalized. Its k-level normal form can be represented as ||u||k for some k = 1, 2, … such
that
1. L2 − normalization
u
u= (45)
||u||22 + 𝜀
2. L2 − Hys : which includes clipping after the L2 − normalization and renormalizing the
blocks
3. L1 − normalization .
u
u= (46)
||u||1 + 𝜀2
4. L1 − sqrt : which consists of square root after L1 − normalization .

( )1
u 2
(47)
u=
||u||1 + 𝜀2
Dalal et al. [21] used HOG descriptors for disease detection and found that the perfor-
mance of L2-normalization, L2-Hys, and L1-sqrt is similar and better than L1-normalization.
Kusumo et al. [46] proposed a study on corn leaf images to investigate presence of leaf
gray spot, northern leaf blight, and common rust disorders and found that HOG outper-
forms among other techniques. HOG based local descriptors were used by [69] for disease
identification in soybean crops and shown to achieve good accuracy. The HOG technique
perform well due to the concepts of cells.
The pyramid of histogram of oriented gradients (PHOG) technique is another form
of HOG. PHOG consists of HOG features over each sub region of image at each scale.
Any pre-awareness of leaf structure is not required in case of HOG feature extraction as it
ignores leaf botanical properties such as no. of lobes, length-width ratio while extracting
the features [103].
Basically, the use of pyramid to represent histogram bins and the HOG feature descrip-
tors are the two main concepts used combinedly in the PHOG descriptors. To develop
the features using PHOG technique, a lesion image is partitioned after preprocessing into
P × P dimensional cells and every pixel in each cell is M × M dimensional. The gradient
magnitude and its direction can be derived similarly to HOG using the following expres-
sions [103]:
( )1
|G(s, t)| = Gx (s, t)2 + Gy (s, t)2 2 (48)
| |
Gy (s, t)
𝜃 = tan−1 (49)
Gx (s, t)
where, Gx (s, t) , Gy (s, t) denote the gradients of image I in horizontal and vertical directions
respectively and can be derived using the differences of pixels, as:
Gx (s, t) =I(s + 1, t) − I(s − 1, t) (50)
13
Gy (s, t) =I(s, t + 1) − I(s, t − 1) (51)

and then the same normalization step is used as described for HOG descriptors. Finally, the
concatenation of all HOG vectors generated for every grid-cell at each pixel represents the
PHOG feature descriptor vector.
In a study, Zhang et al. [104] used PHOG features extracted in three pyramids to detect
various infections in cucumber crop leaf images. Moreover, some researchers also used
logarithmic frequency based PHOG procedure to prepare a set of features for disease detec-
tion in cucumber crop using SVM [84].
In addition to the feature descriptors reviewed in this section, some plant disease detec-
tion systems jointly use multiple texture feature descriptors. It is observed that concatenat-
ing the complementary features leads to better accuracy [36, 41, 82, 83]. Appendix 1 pro-
vides a summary of research works on plant disease detection/classification using different
texture feature extraction techniques.
3.2 Color feature extraction
Color features provides the physical and visual properties of colors and reflect sensor
response for different wavelengths. Relatively, color features are robust to complex back-
grounds and invariant to orientation and scale. Color features provide photo-metrical infor-
mation such as illumination, shadow, shading, and optical density of color channels. The
color features can be represented in different color spaces such as Luv, RGB, HSI, YCbCr,
HSV, and L*a*b* as discussed in earlier sections. The gray-scale values in different bands
can simply be used as features. Various other feature measures could be derived from the
color spaces discussed as in subsequent subsections.
3.2.1 Color histogram
The color histogram represents the color distribution of an image [16, 48] and can describe
image brightness and contrast. A color histogram can be considered as a set of bins and the
bins represent the probability of a pixel belonging to a particular color. It concentrate on
the composition of colors regardless of their spatial structure and location. A color histo-
gram can be viewed as a vector given below:
{ }
H = H0 , H1 , H2 , … , Hr , … , HN (52)
where Hr denotes the no. of pixel with color r from a color space of N colors. The normal-
ized form of color histogram vector is expressed as
{ }
H � = H0� , H1� , H2� , … , Hr� , … , HN� (53)
where
Hr
Hr� = (54)
n
here symbol n denotes the total number of pixels in the image.
It can be computed using the two color quantizers namely min and max [48]. Color
quantizers are the down-sampled images where max quantizer is brighter than min. For
13
the quantization of a given RGB color image P with dimension M × N , P split into the
multiple non-overlapping { small regions with}dimension m × n . These regions can be
expressed by p(s, t) = fR (u, v), fG (u, v), fB (u, v) with index (s, t) such that s = 1, 2, … , M
m
and t = 1, 2, … , Nn . Thus, the min quantizer for such image regions can be computed by
finding the minimum pixels in the RGB color space such as
{
pmin (s, t) = min∀u,v fR (u, v), min∀u,v fG (u, v),
} (55)
min∀u,v fB (u, v) ;
Similarly, max quantizer can be obtained by finding the maximum pixels in RGB color
space:
{
pmax (s, t) = max∀u,v fR (u, v), max∀u,v fG (u, v),
} (56)
max∀u,v fB (u, v) ;
where u = 1, 2, … , m and v = 1, 2, … , n.
Assume, Cmin = cmin1
, cmin
2
, … , cmin
Nmin
and Cmax = cmax
1
, cmax
2
, … , cmax
Nmax
are the min and
max color codebooks having size Nmin and Nmax . Using these color codebooks, the
indexing of min and max is given by,
i�min (s, t) =arg min||pmin (s, t), cmin

k
||22 (57)
k=1,2,…,Nmin
i�max (s, t) =arg min ||pmax (s, t), cmax

k
||22 (58)
k=1,2,…,Nmax
Finally, color histogram CHFmin from min quantizer is viewed as:

{
M
CHFmin (k) =Pr i�min (s, t) = k|s = 1, 2, … , ;
m
N
} (59)
t = 1, 2, … , ,
n
for k = 1, 2, … , Nmin . The symbol Pr. represents the probability operator. The color histo-
gram CHFmax from max quantizer is computed as:
{
M
CHFmax (k) =Pr i�max (s, t) = k|s = 1, 2, … , ;
m
N
} (60)
t = 1, 2, … , ,
n
for k = 1, 2, … , Nmax . The size of CHFmin and CHFmax are same as of min and max code-
books i.e, Nmin and Nmax respectively.
Caglayan et al. [16] computed color histograms for R, G, and B channels to rec-
ognize plant types and found best result with 10 bins of histograms after analyzing
several bins.
3.2.2 Color moments
Color moments represent color similarity for images independent to rotation and scale. Thus,
it can be employed in image retrieval and image recognition applications [27]. The concept of
13
color moments to define the color features is inspired by probability theory and these moments
represent the probability distribution uniquely. Thus, moments can interpret color distribution,
if the colors are characterized using a probability distribution. Colors are encoded in three
or more channels. For all these channels moments are calculated. Therefore, the three color
band image is described using 9 moments, i.e., 3 color moments for each color band. These
three color moments are mean, skewness, standard deviation and used to represent the color
distribution of images effectively and efficiently. Assuming, a pixel fij which represents the ith
color band at jth pixel and total pixels in the image are N. So, these three color moments can
be expressed as follows [80]:
1. First Order Moment

The first order moment is viewed as the mean value of colors of an image. It is denoted
by 𝜇i and determined as follows:
1 ∑
N
𝜇i = f (61)
N j=1 ij
2. Second Order Moment

The second order moment for an image is prepared by the square root of the variance
of the color distribution and represented using 𝜎i . It is known as standard deviation and
computed as follows:
{ )2 } 12
1 ∑(
N
𝜎i = fij − 𝜇i (62)
N j=1
3. Third Order Moment

It is termed as the degree of irregularity in color distribution in any image. Thus, it
provides the shape of distribution of color in the image. It is denoted by §i and deter-
mined as follows:
{ )3 } 13
1 ∑(
N
Si = fij − 𝜇i (63)
N j=1
In addition some other statistical measures such as kurtosis, variance, and color correlation
can also be used as color moments [81]. The color moments are used to recognize the objects
based on similarity match. The score of similarity is measured using the following expression
( ) ∑r
dmom I1 , I2 = Wi1 |𝜇i1 − 𝜇i2 | + Wi2 |𝜎i1 − 𝜎i2 |
i=1 (64)
+ Wi3 |Si1 − Si2 |
where I1 and I2 are two color distributions, i represents a color band, r is the total number of
bands, 𝜇i1 and 𝜇i2 are 1st order moments, 𝜎i1 and 𝜎i2 are 2nd order moments, Si1 and Si2 are 3rd
order moments, Wi1 , Wi2 , and Wi3 are the weights assumed for each color band in the images.
Sabrol and Kumar [81] used three color moments to detect diseases in tomato crops.
They considered five diseases such as bacterial leaf spot, leaf curl, bacterial canker, late
blight, and septoria leaf spot. Kaur et al. [41] used upto third order moments to identify
diseases in soybean plants. Three color moments were used jointly by [80] with color
13
histogram features to classify tomato crop diseases using fuzzy inference system. Color
moments such as mean, variance, kurtosis, skewness, energy, and entropy have been
exploited by [23] to detect diseases in corn crop using k-NN and SVM. The authors
reported good results for a small dataset.
3.2.3 Color co‑occurrence matrix
The color co-occurrence matrix (CCM) [17] represents the color distribution for each color
channel. It generates unique features by considering both color and texture. CCM provides
probability of the occurrence of a pixel with a specific gray level at given distances and
directions from the pixels having different gray levels. CCMs are determined band by band.
Consequently, as many CCMs are generated as the number of bands. CCM provides spatial
representation of the image but intensity information is ignored. Therefore, it is a matter of
concern if dataset consists of both gray-scale and color images.
Pydipati et al. [74] used HSI color space based CCMs to detect citrus disease. The three
CCM were prepared for each of the color channel belonging to HSI color space. In another
research, Ramakrishnan et al. [75] proposed to detect infections such as early and late
leaf spots in groundnut crop through CCM generated features and the CCM features were
extracted for HSV color space. Several other CCM based systems [3, 38, 78] were also
developed for identification of plant infections.
The research work reviewed in this section is summarized in Appendix 2.
3.3 Shape features extraction
Shape features provide the visual attributes of an object in an image such as circular, trian-
gular, rectangular shapes, and perimeter boundary, etc. Shape feature extraction techniques
follow the properties such as statistical independence, scale invariant, translation, rotation,
and identifiability [98]. The shape of infection in plant leaf images depends on disease
types, crop species, and pathogen type. The shape features can be described by diameter,
solidity, eccentricity, centroid, area, extent, major axis length, convex hull, and minor axis
length [86].
Various shape feature descriptors can be defined as follows [86, 98]:
1. Center of Gravity
It is also known as centroid that is obtained as the average coordinate of the pixel in
an image and calculated( differently
) for region based and contour based shape descrip-
tions. It is denoted by gx , gy and located at a fixed position relating to image shape
for region based shape description:
1 ∑
N
gu = u (65)
N i=1 i
1 ∑
N
gv = v (66)
N j=1 j
where N denotes the no. of shape points. For contour based shape representation,
centroid co-ordinates are determined as follows:
13
1 ∑( )( )
N−1
gu = u + ui+1 ui vi+1 − ui+1 vi (67)
6A i=0 i
1 ∑( )( )
N−1
gv = v + vj+1 uj vj+1 − uj+1 vj (68)
6A j=0 j
1| ∑ ( )|
N−1
A= | ui vi+1 − ui+1 vi | (69)
|
2 i=0 |
where A is contour area.

2. Eccentricity
Eccentricity is viewed as the ratio of major axis length to minor axis length. It is also
called as circularity ratio that lies between 0 and 1 for circular spots spots respectively
and it is a measure of line aspect ratio. It is estimated as follows:
{( Major axis )2 ( ) }1
Minor axis 2 2
E =2× − (70)
2 2
where major axis and minor axis length is calculated using

Major axis length =x1 + x2 (71)
{( )2 }1
Minor axis length = x1 + x2 − d
2
(72)
where d denotes the distance between foci; and x1 , x2 are the distances between focus
and the points in the image.
3. Orientation
Orientation is defined as the angle 𝜃 between horizontal and spot’s major axis and
it is estimated as follows:
y
𝜃 = tan−1 (73)
x
4. Aspect Ratio (AR)
It is the measure of relationship of width to height of the image or selected region
and expressed as the mathematical symbolic notation x : y.
Width
AR = (74)
Height
5. Area (a)
Area, for any N ∗ M image or region from the image, can be viewed as given fol-
lows:
∑ ∑
M N
a= A[u, v] (75)
u=1 v=1
13
6. Solidity (Compactness)
Solidity is determined as the ratio of convex hull area and spot area. It is also
known as compactness and lies between 0 and 1. According to the value of solidity
the compactness of the shape is decided. If the solidity of a shape is 1 then shape is
fully compacted. It describes whether the shape of a region is concave or convex.
As
Solidity = (76)
Ah
where, As is the lesion/spot shape area and Ah denotes the convex hull area for a
lesion shape.
7. Rectangularity (Extent)
It is the measure of rectangularity of the shape of the spot. Its value also lies between
0 and 1. The shape of a spot is perfectly rectangle if rectangularity value is 1. It is
calculated as follows:
As
Rectangularity = (77)
AR
where AR is the minimum bounding rectangle area. The minimum bounding rectan-
gle is the smallest rectangle covering all the points in the shape.
8. Ratio of principle axis
It can be described as the ratio of major axis length and minor axes length given as follows:
Major axis length
(78)
Minor axis length
9. Euler Number
It shows the connection between the number of number of holes and neighboring
parts for a spot. The Euler number is represented by Eul and determined as follows:
Eul = S − N (79)
where S and N represent the number of neighboring parts and number of holes in the
image shape respectively.
10. Equidiameter
It is the diameter of a disk having area similar to the shape of spot and computed as
{ 4 × Spot Area } 1
(80)
2
Equidiameter =
𝜋
11. Perimeter For a shape of spot, It is calculated as follows:
Perimeter = 2 × length + 2 × width (81)
Mathematical moments are also an important shape descriptors used in image analysis. Hu’s
moments [79] are one of the widely used mathematical moments to describe the shape of the
lesion. Hu’s moments help to describe leaf image outlines and its shape. These moments are
calculated on a gray channel and stable against the transformations such as translation, scaling
and rotation [76, 79].
H1 =𝜙20 + 𝜙02 ; (82)
13
( )2
H2 = 𝜙20 − 𝜙02 + 4𝜙211 ; (83)
( )2 ( )2
H3 = 𝜙30 − 3𝜙12 + 3𝜙21 − 𝜙03 ; (84)
( )2 ( )2
H4 = 𝜙30 + 𝜙12 + 𝜙21 + 𝜙03 ; (85)
( )( )( )2
H5 = 𝜙30 − 3𝜙12 𝜙30 + 𝜙12 [ 𝜙30 + 𝜙12
( )2 ( )( )
− 3 𝜙21 + 𝜙03 ] + 3𝜙21 − 𝜙03 𝜙21 + 𝜙03 (86)
( )2 ( )2
.[3 𝜙30 + 𝜙12 − 𝜙21 + 𝜙03 ];
( )( )2 ( )2
H6 = 𝜙20 − 𝜙02 [ 𝜙30 + 𝜙12 − 𝜙21 + 𝜙03 ]
( )( ) (87)
+ 4𝜙11 𝜙30 + 𝜙12 𝜙21 + 𝜙03 ;
( )( )( )2
H7 = 3 𝜙21 − 𝜙03 𝜙30 + 𝜙12 [ 𝜙30 + 𝜙12
( )2 ( )
− 3 𝜙21 + 𝜙03 ] − 𝜙30 + 3𝜙12 (𝜙21 (88)
( )2 ( )2
+ 𝜙03 )[3 𝜙30 + 𝜙12 − 𝜙21 + 𝜙03 ].
where 𝜙pq denotes the normalized central moment for an image f (u, v) , and defined such
as:
𝜂pq ∑∑( )p ( )q
𝜙pq =
𝜂00
𝜂pq = u − u v − v f (u, v) (89)
u v
for p, q = 1, 2, 3, … and u = and v = are centroid components of image. And, the

m10 m10
m00 m00
moment sequence mij is determined uniquely for the image f (u, v) with intensity level
I(u, v) at each pixel and calculated as follows:
∑∑
mij = ui vj I(u, v) (90)
u v
( )
Moments H1 , H2 , … , H7 are known as Hu’s moments. The first moment H1 is similar to
moment of inertia with respect to image centroid and the moment H7 is invariant to skewness.
Joshi and Jadhav [37] presented a study for infection identification in rice crop and
extracted zone-wise shape features from the spots of diseases such as sheath rot, brown spot,
blast, and bacterial blight. In another study, Sengar et al. [85] used area of infected region
as a geometric feature to detect the powdery mildew infection through investigating the simi-
larities in infected and healthy leaf images of cherry plant. Anthonys and Wickramarachchi [5]
used shape features such as concavity, extending length, shape complexity, roundness, and
area to detect various diseases in rice crop. Moreover, Phadikar et al. [68] used various shape
attributes such as orientation, aspect ratio, area, perimeter, etc. for the classification of multi-
ple disorders present in citrus plants. Furthermore, Ramesh et al. [76] prepared a set of Hu’s
moments as a shape features for plant disease detection. Hu’s moments were calculated after
converting the RGB image to gray scale. A summary of previous work reviewed in this section
is given in tabular form in Appendix 3.
13
3.4 Combination of feature extraction techniques (texture, color, and shape)
A combination of multiple features is also used in the analysis of plant disorders. To

improve the performance of disease detection systems features of different kind can be
combined. These combinations can be useful if different types of features provide com-
plementary information. A summary of work based on such combinations is provided in
Appendix 4.
3.5 Feature extraction using MPEG‑7 visual descriptors
MPEG-7 provides a set of standard tools for describing multimedia contents and for
deploying these details in various applications that operate on multimedia data [55]. It
standardizes the “descriptors” or “description schemes”, a language “description defini-
tion language” to specify the descriptions, and a scheme for describing the descriptors.
The description is associated to the contents, which allow efficient and fast access of the
required information/features to the user [92]. The MPEG-7 visual descriptor includes var-
ious features like: 7 color descriptors such as color layout, dominant colors, gof/gop, color
space, color structure, scalable color, and color quantization descriptors; 3 texture feature
descriptors such as homogenous texture, edge histogram, and texture browsing texture
descriptors; and 3 shape descriptors such as contour shape, shape 3-D, and region shape
[57].
Anami et al. [4] used MPEG-7 based dominant color and color layout features to cla-
sisfy the various stresses in paddy crops through SVM and k-NN. A researcher utilized a
set of standard MPEG-7 visual descriptors for the assessment of maize crop diseases [54].
3.6 Feature extraction using deep Learning
The conventional feature extraction techniques are limited to deal non-linear nature of
image dataset. Deep learning techniques have ability to deal with non-linearity in data-
set. Due to this ability, Deep learning based techniques can learn spectral and spatial both
information from the input images. The deep model learns the complex features at differ-
ent layers. The abstract features extracted through deep models are typically invariant to
local changes. In deep features extraction, the activation values at different layers of the
hierarchical framework are stored and used as features [18]. Generally, restricted Boltz-
man Machine (RBM), autoencoder, convolutional neural networks (CNN), and deep belief
networks (DBN) are some deep learning based models used for feature extraction in vari-
ous studies [45]. But, CNN is widely used technique for feature extraction in plant dis-
ease detection studies. CNN is a special model that is based on deep learning and inspired
by system of visual cortex of human being. It is basically a group of convolutional layer,
pooling layer, and fully connected layer as presented in Fig. 2. The convolutional layer
is responsible to generate feature maps after convolving/sliding the kernel filter over the
images. Convolution operation is viewed as
( )
Z i = q Ai ∗ Z i−1 + bi (91)
13
Feature Extraction
Output
Input Image Convolution FC

Pooling
Convolution
Pooling
FC: Fully Connected
Fig. 2 Architecture of CNN
where Z i represents the output activation map at layer i which is input to next layer (i + 1) ,
bi denotes bias at ith layer, and Ai denotes the filter. q() represents the activation function,
and � ∗� can be viewed as an operator responsible for convolution operation. Pooling layer
is responsible for down sampling of feature maps having redundant features and operation
at pooling layer cab be given as:
( )
Z i = s Z i−1 + bl (92)
where s() is a function responsible for down sampling and generates output of less size
to its input. The pooling layer is used to make features abstract and robust. The third type
of layer is fully connected layers which is used to generate feature vector which is more
deep and robust. One-dimensional CNN which is a combination of several convolution
and pooling layers provides spectral information. The extended form of 1-D CNN, i.e.
2-D CNN provides spatial information about image object in a hierarchical manner. CNN
reduces the overall complexity of the plant disease detection system by generating feature
vectors which are automatically used for classification at fully connected layers. Therefore,
it overcome the problem of selecting a suitable feature extraction technique and feature.
Moreover, it mitigate the need of feature selection techniques also.
3.7 Computational cost based comparison of commonly used feature extraction

techniques
This subsection provides a comparison of computational cost based on execution time for
some commonly used features extraction techniques including GLCM, LBP, DWT, Gabor fil-
ters, Hu’s moments, SIFT, SURF, color moments, color histograms, and deep features. For
GLCM, the six most commonly used features are considered. The experiments are performed
on an apple leave from PlantVillage dataset. All the experiments are carried out on Google
CoLab platform that provides about 36 GB RAM with GPU. The implementation is
done in Python. All the results are average of five independent trials. The results are listed in
Table 1.
It can be observed from the table that GLCM, DWT, and Hu’s moments are among the
least expensive methods. The CNN based deep learning method is the most computationally
expensive technique. There is a huge gap in the execution times of CNN and other techniques.
13
394
13
Table 1 A comparison of common feature extraction techniques based on their average execution time
Technique GLCM LBP 2D-DWT Gabor Feature Hu’s moments SIFT SURF Color Moments Color Histogram Deep Features
Time (ms) 10 40 10 20 10 29 70 700 30 5000

4 Summary and discussion
The extraction of desirable features from raw images is highly important for the successful
application of computer vision techniques for automatic detection of diseases in plants. The
feature extraction aims at obtaining informative contents from the original data and reducing
the redundancy. There are various feature extraction methods based on different types of tech-
niques, which focus on specific image properties. Some techniques tend to explore textural
properties, the other ones emphasize on shape, size, color, pattern, and edge, etc. of the objects
in the image. Therefore, the choice of features for a particular application is crucial to get the
desired results. It is also noticed during the review, the improper selection of features leads to
poor results [86]. Feature extraction techniques supports improvement in data visualization,
speed up model training and improvement in model accuracy.
Therefore, extracting and picking the appropriate features is most prominent for a good dis-
ease analysis system [68, 105]. There could be various issues related to hand crafted features
discussed as follows.
• Visual similarities in symptoms of different diseases raises the complexity of finding

appropriate features to extract. In such cases, machine learning algorithms require a large
set of features to differentiate or identify diseases accurately.
• Sometimes, the extracted features work well under given setup and defined constraints.
But the performance degrades significantly with a variation in setup or conditions. It is
a challenging issue to generate robust features. Deep learning techniques have well
addressed this issue. Although they have their own challenges.
• The plants or crops have different growth stages. They may be affected by similar or dif-
ferent diseases at different stages. A particular type of features may work well at one stage
but may not perform well at other stages. Again it provides a challenge to the choice of
features and feature extraction technique.
• The hand-crafted features require a set of feature selection strategies to find features for
optimal solution.
The merits and demerits of some commonly used feature extraction techniques, reviewed in
this paper, are provided in Table 2.
Table 2 Merits and demerits of most commonly used feature extraction techniques

Technique Characteristics Merits Demerits
GLCM Based on relative Determine texture variability Requires modeling of high

positions of pixels in effectively, good performance correlation of Haralick
neighborhood. in terms of processing time and features, high dimensionality
complexity of matrix and sensitive to
size of texture samples to be
processed.
Moments Based on algebraic Computationally less expensive, Less resistive to occultation,
invariant. Invariant to scale, translation, Non-adaptive pixel
and rotation, compute smaller neighborhood.
feature set and ability to
represent global features.
13
Table 2 (continued)
Technique Characteristics Merits Demerits
LBP Based on difference of Easy implementation and Non-adaptive pixel
gray-level of a pixel and computationally low cost, neighborhood, noise and
its neighbor. invariant to scale and rotation, blurring sensitive.
good performance due to
combined statistical and
structural analysis.
Gabor filters Model of human visual Defines structure of an image using Non-orthogonality leads
information system scale and orientation, enables redundant features at different
filtering in spatial and frequency scales.
domains.
2-D DWT Based on signal Ability to capture spatial Neither translation-invariant
decomposition at information and localized nor rotation-invariant, high
different orientations, frequency, statistical and computation time.
scales, and frequencies. geometrical information can be
defined.
SIFT Based on intensities of Distinctive local features robust Rotation and illumination
key points depending on to clutter and occlusion, large dependence and quite slow.
scale, gradient magnitude feature set for a single object,
and orientation. scale invariant.
SURF Based on convolution of Fast feature computation and quick Difficulties in handling
box filters with object matching capability, robust to viewpoint changes and
image and use of Hessian local representation illumination changes.
matrix.
Color Based on statistical Ability to overcome quantization No spatial information, can’t
moments information- mean, effects, compact and robust. describe all colors.
variance and skewness.
Color histo- Based on color Easy computation, intitutive. High noise sensitivity, no spatial
gram quantization and pixel information, high dimensional.
counting for each color.
Deep fea- Learning based and Ability to handle non-linearity in High computationally expansive,
tures biological inspired, CNN data, extracts high level features. difficult to choose number of
generated. hidden layers and its size.
5 Conclusion and future scope
This article presented a review of feature extraction techniques used to develop automatic plant
disease detection and classification systems. The major components of an automatic crop dis-
ease detection system such as image acquisition, pre-processing, region of interest identification,
feature extraction, and classification were discussed with emphasis on feature extraction. There
are various feature descriptors based on the spectral and spatial attributes of the images such as
shape, texture, and color etc. Various systems are developed based on one or more such charac-
teristics. All such techniques were reviewed in this work and summarized in tabular form. On
the basis of accuracy, it can be concluded that a combination of complementary features pro-
vide better accuracy compared to single feature types. In recent times, deep learning techniques
are successfully applied for feature extraction in agricultural applications. These techniques have
the ability to learn both color and spatial characteristics simultaneously. Although, deep learning
techniques have their own limitations including high computational complexity. Still their high
accuracy is impressive. On the basis of key findings from literature of plant disease detection, fol-
lowing future aspects can be given for additional exploration in further research:
13
• Diseases or infection in plants usually grow stage-wise. It would be interesting to

evaluate the performance of feature extraction techniques at different stages of a dis-
ease. Detection at early stage may help the farmers to minimize the loss.
• Further research can also be dedicated to evaluate different feature extraction tech-
niques and their combinations to detect multiple infections in plants. Sometimes,
plant may be infected with multiple diseases at the same time. Identification of mul-
tiple diseases is complex as compared to a particular disease.
• A few researchers have tested combinations of multiple features to detect infection in
plants. More efforts are required to explore the combination of multiple features to achieve
better accuracy.
• The most of the existing research is focused on the detection of diseases in crops or
plants. However, the estimation of severity of a disease is an important information
for the farmers. Therefore, serious efforts are required for the development of auto-
matic methods for the disease severity estimation.
Appendix 1
Summary of research works based on texture features
The research efforts for plant disease detection based on texture features are summa-
rized in Table 3.
Appendix 2
Summary of plant disease detection research based on color features
The color features based research on plant disease detection and diagnosis is summa-
rized in Table 4.
Appendix 3
Summary of plant disease detection research on shape features
The shape features based research on plant disease detection and diagnosis is summa-
rized in Table 5.
Appendix 4
Summary of plant disease detection research on combined features
The combinations of texture, color, and shape features based research on plant disease
detection and diagnosis is summarized in Table 6.
13
Table 3 Summary of research work based on texture feature extraction techniques and various texture features
398
Studies Cultures Disorders Dataset Considered No. of Images Used Features Classifier Acc.
13
Texture Feature Extraction using GLCM
Yao et al. [99] Rice Bacterial leaf Self-captured using 216 images, 72 5 parameters (entropy, SVM 88.00%
blight, Rice blast, CCD camera from samples of contrast, uniformity,
Sheath rot rice field of NRRI, each disease linear correlation,
China inverse difference) in
4-orientations and 3
spatial (HSV) system
Kai et al. [38] Corn 5 parameters (energy, EBPNN 98.00%
entropy, moment of
inertia, related and
local stationary) in
4-orientations&YCbCr
spatial system
Deshapande et al. [23] Corn Common rust, Self-captured using 200 leaf images, 4 Haar parameters based K-NN, SVM 85%, 88%
Northern blight, Samsung digital 50 for each on GLCM (homogeneity,
both diseases, camera PL200 at category contrast, correlation,
Healthy UAS, Dharwad, energy) in 2-orientations
India and RGB spatial system
Tian et al. [94] Wheat Powdery mildew, Self-captured with 5 features (moment of SVM 78.91%
Leaf rust, Leaf uniform black inertia, energy, entropy,
blight, Puccinia background using correlation and local
striiformis Nikon camera in smooth) in 4-orientations
Northern China
Gharge and Singh [28] Soybean Frog eye, Downy IPM dataset 30 images, 10 7 features (contrast, 3-Layer EBPNN 93.30%
mildew, Bacterial images for homogeneity, energy,
pustule each disease difference variance,
difference entropy,
maximum probability,
entropy) for hue
component
Table 3 (continued)
Patil et al. [65] Potato Late blight, Early Collected from 892 leaf images 7 features (inverse SVM, RF, ANN 84%, 79%, and
blight various sources (Healthy: 462, difference, contrast, 92%
including Unhealthy: difference variance,
PlantVillage data 430) & 300 uniformity, homogeneity,
set images from maximum probability) in
PlantVillage HSV bands
(inclusive)
Abed and Esmaeel [1] Bean Brown spot, Pow- Collected from 100 images 13Haralick features for SVM 100%
dery mildew the University (Training: 60 texture analysis
of Florida & & Testing: 40)
PlantVillage
dataset
Mokhtar et al. [61] Tomato Healthy, Infected 9 features (sum of squares, SVM with vari- 99.83% (Linear
energy, contrast, ous kernels kernel)

entropy, correlation, sum
entropy, cluster shades,
cluster prominence,
and homogeneity) in
4-orientations
Mainkar et al. [53] Tomato Septoria spot, 4-parameters (contrast, FF-BPNN 94%
Healthy correlation, homogeneity,
energy)
Masazhar and Palm tree Chimaera, Collected from seed 4 features (energy, Multi class 95%
Kamal [56] Anthracnose nursery, Nigeria homogeneity, contrast, SVM
Sembilan entropy)
13
399
400
Texture Feature Extraction using SIFT and DSIFT
13
Mohan et al. [59] Rice Leaf blast, Brown 120 images 7 features (position of x & SVM, k-NN 91.10%, 93.33%
spot, Bacterial (training-90, y, scale, edge orientation,
blight testing-30) edge flag, feature size,
curvature of response
using scale-space)
Kusumo et al. [46] Corn Gray leaf spot, PlantVillage dataset 3,823 images Features in 100 key points SVM (Linear), 66%, 38%, 58%,
Common rust, and 12800 directions SVM (RBF), 44%, and 67%
Northern leaf Naïve Bayes,
blight, Healthy decision tree,
RF classifier
Aduwo et al. [2] Cassava Mosaic, Healthy Captured from 101 infected SIFT features NB, ANN, 95%, 97%, 93%,
leaf Research institute, and 92 healthy SVM, k-NN, 99%, and 97%
Uganda with a plants DLVQ
digital camera
Pires et al. [69] Soybean Mildew, Rust tan, Captured from 1200 scanned 3500 visual words SVM 93.66%
Rust RB soybean fields of images
federal university,
Brazil
Dandawate and Soybean Healthy, Diseased, Captured using 120 image Correlation and SIFT key SVM 93.70%
Kokare [22] Pest infected mobile camera of (training- 90, points
5 MP testing-30)
Pires et al. [69] Soybean Mildew, Rust tan, Captured from the 1200 scanned DSIFT technique (2000 SVM 90%
Rust RB soybean fields of images visual words)
federal university,
Brazil
Texture Feature Extraction using LBP and its variants
Zhang and Meng [101] Citrus Citrus canker, Collected from 3000 images LBP in 8 directions AdaBoost 85.25%
Healthy citrus NRI, China (1000 and classifier
2000 of
the two
categories)
Singh et al. [89] Lentil Rust disease, Captured Total 300 LBP for texture feature Visual
Healthy microscopic images analysis examination
images with the
camera (LIECA)
Pantazi et al. [64] 18 crops Powdery mildew, Total 46 images Texture analysis using LBP SVM (One 83.3-95%
Black rot, Downy Class)
mildew, healthy
Samajpati and Apple Black rot, Blotch, 80 fruit images LBP features RF classifier 75%
Degadwala [83] Scab, Healthy
Samajpati and Apple Black rot, Blotch, 80 fruit images LTP features RF classifier 60.00%
Samajpati and Apple Black rot, Blotch, 80 fruit images CLBP features RF classifier 60.00%
Dubey and Jalal [25] Apple Blotch, Rot, Scab, 431 fruit images LBP features for P = 8, Multiclass SVM 90.97%
Healthy (100, 107, R=1
104, and 120
of 4 classes)
Dubey and Jalal [25] Apple Blotch, Rot, Scab, 431 fruit images CLBP features for P = 8, Multiclass SVM 93.14%
Healthy (100,107,104 R=1
and 120 of 4
classes)
Waghmare et al. [96] Grape Black rot, Downy Self-captured 450 leaf images HSV color features + Multiclass SVM 89.30%
mildew, Powdery directly from the texture features using
mildew, Healthy farm using camera OCLBP patterns
13
401
402
Texture Feature Extraction using Gabor Filter
13
Samajpati and Apple Black rot, Blotch, 80 apple fruit Gabor features (mean and RF classifier 67.50%
Degadwala [83] Scab, Healthy images standard deviation)
Zhang and Meng [101] Citrus Canker, Healthy Collected from 3000 images Gabor features in 6 scales AdaBoost 86.00%
citrus NRI, China (1000 and and 8 directions classifier
2000 of
the two
categories)
Kulkarni and R.K. [44] Punica granatum Alternaria, Collected from field 140 leaf images Gabor filter ANN 91.00%
Bacterial Blight, using camera
Anthracnose
Prasad et al. [71] Mango, Potato, Powdery mildew, 66 leaf images Gabor features in 5 scales SVM with RBF 89.00%
Tomato, Apple, Downy mildew, (Training: 66, and 8 orientation kernel
Ground nut Late blight, Early Testing: 18)
blight, Tikka
Texture Feature Extraction using wavelet transform
D. Pujari et al. [20] Sugar cane Leaf smut, Red rot Collected from 2600 leaf 49152 feature vector (DWT PNN 86.48%
Department of images at 2nd level)
Plant Pathology,
UAS, Dharwad,
India
Asfarian et al. [7] Rice Dan tungro, Brown Collected from 40 images, 10 Fractal descriptors based PNN 83%
spot, blight, blast paddy fields of each disease on Fourier transform for
West Java, texture analysis
Indonesia
Bernardes et al. [14] Cotton Ascochyta blight, Collected 420 leaf images Wavelet energy using DWT SVM 89.50%
Ramularia, from various at 3rd level
Bacterial blight, phytopathologist
Healthy at Embrapa cotton,
Brazil
Karadağ et al. [39] Pepper bell Healthy, Fusarium, Captured from ARI, 80 leaf images Wavelet transform (min, ANN, NB, 88.12%, 84%,
Mycorrhizal Turkey max, mean, standard k-NN 99%
fungus, Both deviation)
diseases
Mohan et al. [59] Rice Brown spot, 60 images Haar features indicating AdaBoost clas- 83.33%
Bacterial leaf vertical variations, sifier
blight, Leaf blast horizontal variations,
diagonal variations of
pixels, horizontal changes
Texture Feature Extraction using HOG and PHOG techniques
Kusumo et al. [46] Corn Gray leaf spot, PlantVillage dataset 3,823 images 34020 dimension features SVM (Linear), 82%, 71%,
Common rust, SVM (RBF), 70.5%, 72%,
Northern leaf Nave Bayes, 82%
blight, Healthy Decision tree,

plants RF
Pires et al. [69] Soybean Mildew, Rust tan, Captured from the 1200 scanned 1000 visual words SVM 80%
Federal University,
Brazil
Zhang et al. [103] Cucumber Powdery Captured using 300 leaf images Log frequency PHOG SVM 91.48%
mildew, Scab android phone (60 images features from L*a*b* with
angular, Scab camera from per category) 3 pyramids and 8 bins
anthracnose, NAFU, China
Downy mildew
Zhang et al. [104] Cucumber, Apple Anthracnose, Taken from 300 leaf images PHOG features from three Context-aware 91.00%
Angular leaf agriculture (50 images component L*a*b* with SVM
spot, Powdery demonstration, per category) no. of pyramid = 3 and
mildew, Yangling, China bin size = 8
Alternaria leaf
spot, Mosiac,
Rust
13
403
404
Texture Feature Extraction using SURF
13
Kusumo et al. [46] Corn Gray leaf spot, PlantVillage dataset 3823 images 200 key points in 12800 SVM (Linear), 62%, 35%,
Common rust, dimensions SVM (RBF), 62.5%, 57%,
Northern leaf Naïve Bayes, 73%
blight, Healthy Decision tree,
RF
Pires et al. [69] Soybean Mildew, Rust tan, Captured from 1200 scanned 500 visual words SVM 71.25%
Federal University,
Brazil
Aduwo et al. [2] Cassava Mosaic, Healthy Captured from 101 infected SURF features NB, ANN, 91%, 90%, 89%,
leaf Research Institute, and 92 healthy SVM, k-NN, 98%, N/A
Uganda using a plants DLVQ
digital camera
Texture Feature Extraction using combined texture features
Samajpati and Apple Black rot, Blotch, 80 apple fruit Gabor features + LBP RF classifier 70%, 80%, 60%,
Degadwala [83] Scab, Healthy images 90%
Samajpati and Black rot, Blotch, 80 apple fruit Gabor features RF classifier 70%, 80%, 80%,
Degadwala [83] Scab, Healthy images + CLBP 100%
features
Samajpati and Apple Black rot, Blotch, 80 apple fruit Gabor features + LTP RF classifier 70%, 80%, 60%,
Degadwala [83] Scab, Healthy images features 100%
Samajpati and Apple Black rot, Blotch, 80 apple fruit Gabor features + LTP + RF classifier 80%, 80% 80%,
Degadwala [83] Scab, Healthy images CLBP features 100%
Kaur et al. [41] Soybean, Downy mildew, PlantVillage dataset 4775 leaf 14 Haralick features + SVM 68.85%
Frog eye, images 48 dimensional Gabor
Septoria leaf features + 40 dimensional
blight DWT features
Jolly and Raman [36] Apple Apple blotch, Collected from 320 apple Gabor features + Haralick SVM (RBF), 96.25%
Apple scab, researchers fruit images features 2-Fold
Apple rot, (Training: 240;
Healthy Testing: 80)
Jolly and Raman [36] Apple Apple blotch, Collected from 320 apple Gabor features + LBP SVM (RBF) in 100.00%
Apple scab, researchers fruit images 2-Fold
Jolly and Raman [36] Apple Apple blotch, Collected from 320 apple Gabor features + LBP k-NN (k = 10) 93.31%
Apple scab, researchers fruit images in 10-Fold
Jolly and Raman [36] Apple Apple blotch, Collected from 320 apple Gabor features + kernel k-NN (k = 10) 93.31%
Apple scab, researchers fruit images PCA in 10-Fold

Sabrol and Kumar [82] Tomato Tomato late blight, Collected using 106 leaf images DWT (RGB feature vector) PCA, kernel 96.40%
Healthy tomato common digital (48 and 58 and Haar Wavelet (low & PCA, and ICA
camera images of two high frequencies of RGB
classes) values)
13
405
Table 4 Summary of research work based on color feature extraction techniques and various color features
406
13
Color Feature Extraction using CCM
Sannakki et al. [84] Grape Downy mildew, 17, 16 images CCM features based Feed-forward 100%
Powdery mildew of two classes on SGDM and EBPNN
respectively, GLCM techniques
(Training: 29;
Testing: 2)
Arivazhagan et al. [6] 30 differ- Sunburn, Bacterial Collected from the 500 leaf images CCM method in HSI SVM 87.66%
ent plant diseases, Early fields of Tamil color system
diseases scorch, Late Nadu, India
scorch, Fungal
diseases
Bashish et al. [11] Tiny whiteness, Images taken from CCM in HSI color FF-BPNN 93.00%
Cottony mold, fields, Jordan system
Ashen mold, Early
& Late scorch
Al-Hiary et al. [3] Tiny whiteness, Images taken from CCM in HSI color FF-BPNN 94.67%
Cottony mold, fields, Jordan system
Ashen mold, Early
& Late scorch
Pydipati et al. [74] Citrus Melanose, Scab, Collected from the 160 images (40 of 13 CCM based SGDM based statis- 95.00%
Greasy spot, horticulture fields, each category) texture features for tical classifier
Normal citrus Central Florida H, S, I channels
Color Feature Extraction using color moments
Sabrol and Kumar [80] Tomato Bacterial leaf spot, 598 leaf images Mean, SD and DT Classifier 78%
Septoria leaf skewness for
spot, Late blight, three color
Bacterial canker, values of CIE
Leaf curl, Healthy XYZ color space
and correlation
value of X and Y
channels
Tian et al. [94] Wheat Leaf blight, Leaf Self-captured Variance, SD, SVM 31.57%
rust, Powdery using a camera in average,
mildew Northern China correlation,
entropy, energy
in RGB & HSI
systems
Deshapande et al. [23] Corn Common rust, Self-captured using 200 leaf images, 50 6 first order k-NN, SVM 84%, 85%
Northern leaf Samsung digital of each category histogram (RBF, linear,
blight, both camera PL200 at features (mean, polynomial)
diseases, Healthy UAS, Dharwad, energy, entropy,
India kurtosis, variance,
skewness) in RGB
system
Color Feature Extraction using color histogram

Luo et al. [51] Corn Small spot, Leaf Collected from ICS, 744 leaf images, Histogram features Histogram matching 94.44%
blight, Curvularia CAAS, China (124 of each
leaf spot, Brown disease)
spot, Gray leaf
spot, Rust spot
Wang et al. [97] Wheat Stripe rust, Powdery Collected from PAB, 200 images Edge- oriented IRKT based 95%, 100%
mildew Beijing histogram features
Wang et al. [97] Wheat Stripe rust, Powdery Collected from PAB, 200 images Directional features IRKT based 97.5%, 100%
mildew Beijing
Phadikar et al. [67] Rice Brown spot, Leaf Self-captured from Radial distribution Naïve Bayes 79.5 %, 68.1%
blast agriculture fields of hue from center classifier, SVM
using Nikon towards boundary
Coolpix P4 as a vector
Zhang et al. [100] Rice Sheath blight Captured using UAV Values of red, green, Vegetation Index 63%
equipped with blue and hue method
multi-spectral bands
camera
13
407
408
13
Kusumo et al. [46] Corn Gray leaf spot, PlantVillage dataset 3,823 images RGB values (12288 SVM (Linear), SVM 88%, 86%, 78%, 76%,
Common rust, dimensional (RBF), Naïve 87%
Northern leaf features) Bayes, Decision
blight, Healthy Tree, RF classifier
Gulhane and Cotton Rust, Scab Self-developed RGB features EBPNN 86.83%
Gurjar [30]
Revathi and Cotton Root rot, Verti- Self-captured from RGB color features Homogeneous 98%
Hemalatha [78] cillium wilt, fields Pixel Counting
Fusarium wilt, Technique
Boll rot
Samajpati and Apple Black rot, Blotch, 80 fruit images Global histogram RF classifier 60%, 70%, 60%, 90%
Degadwala [83] Scab, Healthy features
Table 5 Summary of research work based on shape feature extraction
Yao et al. [99] Rice Bacterial leaf blight, Rice Self-captured using CCD 216 images, 72 4 features (roundness, SVM 82.40%
blast, Sheath rot camera (NikonD80) samples of rectangularity,
from the rice field of each disease compactness, and
NRRI, China elongation) prepared
using values of
area, perimeter and
Minimum Enclosing
Rectangle (MER)
Tian et al. [94] Wheat Powdery mildew, Leaf Self-captured with Lesion area ratio, SVM 60.59%
rust, Leaf blight, uniform black compactness , 7
Puccinia striiformis background using invariant moments
Nikon camera in
Northern China
Shrivastava and Soybean Brown spot, Frog eye Self-captured by 100 leaf images, Leaf perimeter and k-NN with k = 1 and 75%
Hooda [88] Samsung mobile 50 samples of centroid Euclidean distance
(soybean fields at each disease metric
Guna, India)
Jadhav and Patil [34] Soybean Bacterial leaf blight, Self-captured Spot area Severity estimation into
Brown spot, Pod mottle 5 classes
Revathi and Hemala- Cotton Bacterial blight, Captured from south zone 270 leaf images Edge features SVM, BPNN and Fuzzy 68.00%,
tha [78] Leaf blight, Root of Tamil Nadu, India classifier 70.00%, and
rot, Micronutrient, using Nokia mobile 78.00%
Fusarium wilt, camera
Verticillium wilt
Rothe and Kshirsa- Cotton Bacterial blight, Alter- Captured using cannon Hu’s moments invariant EBPNN 85.52%
gar [79] naria, Myrothecium A460 digital camera to translation, scale and
rotation (M1, M2, M3,
M4, M5, M6, and M7
as central moments)
Sengar et al. [85] Cherry Fungal infection Images from PlantVillage 100 leaf images Spot area Quantification of 99%
diseased area (using
lesion area ratio)
13
409
Table 6 Summary of research work based on combinations of feature extraction techniques and combined features
410
13
Using combined shape and texture features
Yao et al. [99] Rice Bacterial leaf blight, Self-captured using 216 images, 72 GLCM 5 features (entropy, SVM 97.20%
Rice blast, Sheath CCD camera samples of each contrast, uniformity,
rot (Nikon D80) from class linear correlation, inverse
rice field of NRRI, difference) in 4-orientations
China and HSV system + 4
shape features (roundness,
rectangularity, compactness,
and elongation) prepared
using values of area,
perimeter and MER
Revathi and Cotton Bacterial blight, Captured from south 270 leaf images Edge features + color texture SVM, BPNN, 91.00%, 93.00%,
Hemalatha [78] Leaf blight, Root zone of Tamil features with PSO for feature Fuzzy classifier 94.00%
rot, Micro- Nadu, India using selection
nutrient, Fusarium Nokia mobile
wilt, Verticillium camera
wilt
Using combined color and shape features
Orillo et al. [63] Rice Bacterial leaf blight, Captured from 134 images Disease spot area, mean value EBPNN 100%
Brown spot, Rice Greenhouse of (Training = 94 of RGB, HSV; SD of RGB
blast IRRI, Los Banos, Validation = 20, color channels of lesion
Philippines Training = 20)
Phadikar et al. [68] Rice Bacterial leaf blight, Mean, SD values of lesion Rule Based 94.40%
Brown spot, Rice area, background pixels, Classifier
blast, Sheath rot and change of lesion color
respective of background
pixels in RGB planes and
Shape of disease spots
Joshi and Rice Bacterial leaf blight, Collected from 115 images, Color moments- mean and Minimum 89.23%, 87.02%
Jadhav [37] Brown spot, Rice Agriculture Training = 80, SD in RGB planes and zone Distance
blast, Sheath rot research station, Testing = 35 wise shape features (extent, Classifier, k-NN
Lonawala, India eccentricity, and orientation)
Revathi and Cotton Bacterial blight, Captured from south 270 leaf images Edge features + CYMK color SVM, EBPNN, 73.00%, 77.00%,
Hemalatha [78] Leaf blight, Root zone of Tamil features Fuzzy classifier 78.00%
rot, Micro- Nadu, India using
nutrient, Fusarium Nokia mobile
wilt, Verticillium camera
wilt
Zhang et al. [102] Cucumber Downy mildew, Log frequency histogram color Sparse 85.70%
Bacterial angular, features in L*a*b* + shape Representation
Corynespora features (Vector length) based
cassicola, Gray classification

mold, Scab,
Powdery mildew,
Anthracnose
Using combined color and texture features
Phadikar and Rice Brown spot, Leaf Self-captured using RGB values, FT, and arbitrary SOM 82%
Sil [66] blast a camera at East rotation of spots
Midnapur, India
Kaur et al. [41] Soybean Septoria leaf blight, Images from 4775 leaf images Texture features + Color SVM 85.65%
Frog eye, Downy PlantVillage features
mildew
Kaur et al. [41] Soybean Septoria leaf blight, Images from 4775 leaf images Color features + 14 Haralick SVM 83.50%
mildew
Kaur et al. [41] Soybean Septoria leaf blight, Images from 4775 leaf images Color features + 48 SVM 85.00%
Frog eye, Downy PlantVillage dimensional Gabor features
mildew
13
411
412
Kaur et al. [41] Soybean Septoria leaf blight, Images from 4775 leaf images Color features + 40 DWT SVM 83.13%
13
mildew
Kaur et al. [41] Soybean Septoria leaf blight, Images from 4775 leaf images Texture features + 64-Color SVM 65.95%
Frog eye, Downy PlantVillage Autocorrelogram features
mildew
Kaur et al. [41] Soybean Septoria leaf blight, Images from 4775 leaf images Texture features + 32 histo- SVM 61.23%
Frog eye, Downy PlantVillage gram (HSV) features
mildew
Kaur et al. [41] Soybean Septoria leaf blight, Images from 4775 leaf images Texture features + 5 color SVM 62.53%
Frog eye, Downy PlantVillage moments
mildew
Hallau et al. [31] Sugar beet CLS, RLS, PLS, Captured using smart 1400 images RGB values & LBP of intensity SVM (RBF) 82%
Beet rust, phone camera and gradient, GLCM features
Bacterial blight
Pujari et al. [73] 12 crops 20 various diseases Captured using Sony 9912 leaf images 4 RGB color features+ 10 SVM, EBPNN 92%, 87%
color camera GLCM features
Zhang and Citrus Canker, Healthy Collected from citrus 3000 leaf images LBPH Ada-boost 88%
Meng [101] NRI, China
Aduwo et al. [2] Cassava Mosaic, Healthy Captured from 101 infected and 92 HSV features + SURF features K-NN 99%
leaf RI, Uganda by a healthy plants
camera
Aduwo et al. [2] Cassava Mosaic, Healthy Captured from 101 infected and 92 HSV features + SIFT features ANN 100%
camera
Aduwo et al. [2] Cassava Mosaic, Healthy Captured from 101 infected and 92 HSV features + SIFT + SURF SVM 100%
camera
Using combined color, texture, and shape features
Zhang et al. [106] Corn Gray leaf spot, 400 leaf images Shape features- lesion area, 3-Layer NN with 93.30%
Brown spot, Leaf viz. 175 of gray geometrical center, minimum PSO
blight speck, 105 brown exterior rectangle, rectangle
spot and 120 of degree, roundness degree,
leaf blight figure complexity; Color
features- H component
and 1st, 2nd and 3rd order
accuracy of H, B component;
Texture features- mean and
SD values of energy, entropy,
inertia, correlation as GLCM
features
Tian et al. [94] Wheat Leaf blight, Leaf Self-captured 5 texture features (moment Meta level SVM 95.16%
rust, Powdery (uniform black of Inertia, energy, entropy,
mildew background) using correlation and local smooth)
Nikon camera in 4-orientations; shape
features (lesion area ratio,
compactness, 7 invariant
moments); color features
(variance, SD, average,
correlation, entropy, energy
in RGB & HSI systems)
Sharif et al. [86] Citrus Canker, Melanose, Image Gallery 1000 citrus fruit 12 Color features + 8 Multi class SVM, 95.8%, 94.5%,
Scab, Greening, dataset images Geometric features + 18 Decision tree, 93.5%, 93.8%,
Black spot, GLCM features Linear Discrimi- 94.5%
Anthracnose nant Analysis,
k-NN, Ensemble
Boosted Tree
13
413
Declarations
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1. Abed S, Esmaeel AA (2018) A novel approach to classify and detect bean diseases based on image
processing. ISCAIE 2018–2018 IEEE Symposium on Computer Applications and Industrial Elec-
tronics. pp 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCAIE.2018.8405488
2. Aduwo JR, Mwebaze E, Quinn JA (2010) Automated vision-based diagnosis of cassava mosaic dis-
ease. In: Perner P (ed) Advances in Data Mining. 10th Industrial Conference, ICDM 2010, Berlin,
Germany, July 2010, Workshop Proceedings. IBaI Publishing, pp 114–122. https://dblp.org/rec/conf/
incdm/AduwoMQ10.bib
3. Al-Hiary H, Bani-Ahmad S, Reyalat M, Braik M, ALRahamneh Z (2011) Article: Fast and accurate
detection and classification of plant diseases. Int J Comput Appl 17(1):31–38. https://doi.org/10.5120/
2183-2754. https://www.ijcaonline.org/archives/volume17/number1/2183-2754
4. Anami BS, Malvade NN, Palaiah S (2020) Classification of yield affecting biotic and abiotic paddy crop
stresses using field images. Inf Process Agric 7(2):272–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2019.08.005
5. Anthonys G, Wickramarachchi N (2009) An image recognition system for crop disease identification
of paddy fields in Sri Lanka. ICIIS 2009 - 4th International Conference on Industrial and Information
Systems 2009, Conference Proceedings. pp 403–407. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIINFS.2009.5429828
6. Arivazhagan S, Shebiah RN, Ananthi S, Varthini SV (2013) Detection of unhealthy region of plant
leaves and classification of plant leaf diseases using texture features. Int J Sci Eng Res 4(8):1777–1780
7. Asfarian A, Herdiyeni Y, Rauf A, Mutaqin KH (2013) Paddy diseases identification with texture anal-
ysis using fractal descriptors based on fourier spectrum. Proceeding - 2013 International Conference
on Computer, Control, Informatics and Its Applications: Recent Challenges in Computer, Control and
Informatics, IC3INA 2013. pp 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3INA.2013.6819152
8. Bai X, Li X, Fu Z, Lv X, Zhang L (2017) A fuzzy clustering segmentation method based on neigh-
borhood grayscale information for defining cucumber leaf spot disease images. Comput Electron
Agric 136:157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.03.004
9. Barbedo JGA (2016) A review on the main challenges in automatic plant disease identification
based on visible range images. Biosys. Eng 144:52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.
2016.01.017. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1537511015302476
10. Bashir K, Rehman M, Bari M (2019) Detection and classification of rice diseases: an automated
approach using textural features. Mehran University Research Journal of Science and Technology
38(1):239–250. https://doi.org/10.22581/muet1982.1901.20
11. Bashish DA, Braik M, Bani-Ahmad S (2011) Detection and classification of leaf diseases using
K-means based segmentation and neura networks based classification. Inf Technol J 267–275.
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.111.479.1009-a
12. Bay H, Tuytelaars T, Van Gool L (2006) SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features. In: Leonardis A,
Bischof H, Pinz A (eds) Computer Vision – ECCV 2006. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Hei-
delberg, pp 404–417. https://www.vision.ee.ethz.ch/~surf/eccv06.pdf
13. Bera T, Das A, Sil J, Das AK (2019) A survey on rice plant disease identification using image process-
ing and data mining techniques. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1501-5.
14. Bernardes AA, Rogeri JG, Oliveira RB, Marranghello N, Pereira AS, Araujo AF, Tavares JMRS
(2013) Identification of Foliar Diseases in Cotton Crop. In: Tavares JMRS, Jorge RMN (eds) Top-
ics in Medical Image Processing and Computational Vision, Lecture Notes in Computational Vision
and Biomechanics. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, pp 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-94-007-0726-9
15. Bruce A, Donoho D, Gao H (1996) Wavelet analysis [for signal processing]. IEEE Spectrum
33(10):26–35
16. Caglayan A, Guclu O, Can AB (2013) A plant recognition approach using shape and color features in leaf
images. In: Petrosino A (ed) Image Analysis and Processing - ICIAP 2013. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg,
Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 161–170
17. Chouhan SS, Singh UP, Jain S (2019) Applications of computer vision in plant pathology: a sur-
vey. Arch Comput Meth Eng (0123456789). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-019-09324-0
13
18. Coulibaly S, Kamsu-Foguem B, Kamissoko D, Traore D (2019) Deep neural networks with trans-
fer learning in millet crop images. Comput Ind 108:115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.
2019.02.003
19. Cruz A, Ampatzidis Y, Pierro R, Materazzi A, Panattoni A, Bellis LD, Luvisi A (2019) Detection of grape-
vine yellows symptoms in Vitis vinifera L. with artificial intelligence. Comput Electron Agric 157:63–
76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.12.028. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0168169918312353
20. D Pujari J, Yakkundimath R, Syedhusain Byadgi A (2013) Automatic fungal disease detection
based on wavelet feature extraction and PCA analysis in commercial crops. Int J Image Graph
Signal Process 6(1):24–31. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijigsp.2014.01.04 http://www.mecs-press.org/
ijigsp/ijigsp-v6-n1/v6n1-4.html
21. Dalal N, Triggs B, Europe D (2005) Histogram of oriented gradients for human detection. 2005
IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05),
2005, 1, pp 886–893
22. Dandawate Y, Kokare R (2015) An automated approach for classification of plant diseases towards devel-
opment of futuristic Decision Support System in Indian perspective. 2015 International Conference on
Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics, ICACCI 2015. pp 794–799. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ICACCI.2015.7275707
23. Deshapande AS, Giraddi SG, Karibasappa KG, Desai SD (2019) Fungal disease detection
in Maize leaves using Haar wavelet features. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-981-13-1742-2.
24. Deshpande T (2017) State of Agriculture in India. PRS Legislative Research (113):1–29. https://
www.prsindia.org/policy/discussion-papers/state-agriculture-india
25. Dubey SR, Jalal AS (2012) Detection and classification of apple fruit diseases using complete local
binary patterns. Proceedings of the 2012 3rd International Conference on Computer and Communica-
tion Technology, ICCCT 2012. pp 346–351. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCT.2012.76
26. Gabor D (1946) Theory of communication. Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers - Part III:
Radio and Communication Engineering 93(26):58. https://doi.org/10.1049/ji-3-2.1946.0074
27. Gawali PD, UKharat D, SHBodake P, (2017) Plant leaf disease detection using image processing. Int
J Recent Innov Eng Res 2(4):90–95
28. Gharge S, Singh P (2016) Image processing for soybean disease classification and severity estimation.
Emerging Research in Computing, Information, Communication and Applications 493–500. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2553-944
29. Ghosh M, Guha R, Singh PK, Bhateja V, Sarkar R (2019) A histogram based fuzzy ensemble tech-
nique for feature selection. Evol Intell 12(4):713–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-019-00279-6
30. Gulhane M, Gurjar A (2011) Detection of diseases on cotton leaves and its possible diagnosis.
International Journal of Image Processing (5):590–598. http://www.cscjournals.org/csc/manuscript/
Journals/IJIP/volume5/Issue5/IJIP-478.pdf
31. Hallau L, Neumann M, Klatt B (2017) Automated identification of sugar beet diseases using smartphones.
Plant Pathol 67(2):399–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.12426
32. Haralick R, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural Features for Image Classification. IEEE Trans Syst
Man Cybern SMC 3(6):610–621
33. Haralick RM (1979) Statistical and structural approaches to texture. Proc IEEE 67(5):786–804. https://doi.
org/10.1109/PROC.1979.11328
34. Jadhav SB, Patil SB (2016) Grading of soybean leaf disease based on segmented image using
K-means clustering. IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (IJ-AI) 5(1):13. https://doi.
org/10.11591/ijai.v5.i1.pp13-21
35. Jain A, Healey G (1998) A multiscale representation including opponent color features for texture
recognition. IEEE Trans Image Process 7(1):124–128. https://doi.org/10.1109/83.650858
36. Jolly P, Raman S (2016) Analyzing surface defects in apples using gabor features. In: 2016 12th Inter-
national Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems Analyzing. pp 178–185.
https://doi.org/10.1109/SITIS.2016.36
37. Joshi AA, Jadhav BD (2017) Monitoring and controlling rice diseases using Image processing tech-
niques. In: International Conference on Computing, Analytics and Security Trends, CAST 2016. pp
471–476. https://doi.org/10.1109/CAST.2016.7915015
38. Kai S, Zhikum L, Hang S, Guo C (2011) A Research of maize disease image recognition of Corn
based on BP Networks L : / o . O. In: Third International Conference on Measuring Technology and
Mechatronics Automation. pp 246–249
13
39. Karadağ K, Tenekeci ME, Taaltn R, Bilgili A (2019) Detection of pepper fusarium disease using machine learn-
ing algorithms based on spectral reflectance. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems (2018). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.suscom.2019.01.001. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2210537918302609
40. Kaur K, Marwaha C (2017) Analaysis of Diseases in Fruits using Image Proccessing Technqiues.
In: Preceeddings of International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics ICEI 201.
pp 183–189
41. Kaur S, Pandey S, Goel S (2018) Semi-automatic leaf disease detection and classification system for soy-
bean culture. IET Image Process 12(6):1038–1048. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-ipr.2017.0822
42. Kaya A, Keceli AS, Catal C, Yalic HY, Temucin H, Tekinerdogan B (2019) Analysis of transfer
learning for deep neural network based plant classification models. Comput Electron Agric 158(Octo-
ber 2018):20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.01.041.
43. Khirade SD, Patil AB (2015) Plant disease detection using image processing. Proceedings - 1st Inter-
national Conference on Computing, Communication, Control and Automation, ICCUBEA 2015. pp
768–771. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCUBEA.2015.153
44. Kulkarni A, RK AP (2012) Applying image processing technique to detect plant diseases. Interna-
tional Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER) 2(5):3661–3664. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0958305X16685471. www.ijmer.com
45. Kumar B, Dikshit O, Gupta A, Singh MK (2020) Feature extraction for hyperspectral image classifica-
tion: a review. Int J Remote Sens 41(16):6248–6287. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2020.1736732
46. Kusumo BS, Heryana A, Mahendra O, Pardede HF (2019) Machine learning-based for automatic detec-
tion of corn-plant diseases using image processing. 2018 International Conference on Computer, Control,
Informatics and its Applications: Recent Challenges in Machine Learning for Computing Applications,
IC3INA 2018 - Proceeding pp 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3INA.2018.8629507
47. Liu H, Motoda H (eds) (2007) Computational methods of feature selection, 1st edn. Chapman and
Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781584888796
48. Liu P, Guo Jm, Chamnongthai K, Prasetyo H (2017) Fusion of color histogram and LBP-based fea-
tures for texture image retrieval and classification. Inf Sci 390:95–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.
2017.01.025.
49. Lowe DG (1999) Object Recognition from Local Scale-Invariant Features. In: Proc. of the International
Conference on Computer Vision
50. Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int J Comput
Vis 91–110. https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~lowe/papers/ijcv04.pdf
51. Luo J, Geng S, Xiu C, Song D, Dong T (2015) A curvelet-SC recognition method for maize disease. J Electr
Comput Eng 8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/164547. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jece/2015/
164547/
52. Maenpaa T (2003) The Local Binary Pattern aproach to Texture Analysis - Extensions and Applications.
Oulu. http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514270762/
53. Mainkar PM, Ghorpade S, Adawadkar M (2015) Plant Leaf Disease Detection and Classification Using
Image Processing Techniques. Int J Innov Emerg Res Eng 2(4):139–144
54. Manjarrez-Sachez J (2020) An assessment of mpeg-7 visual descriptors for images of maize plagues
and diseases. IEEE Lat Am Trans 18(08):1487–1494. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLA.2020.9111686
55. Martínez JM (2003) Mpeg-7 overview (version 9). ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 N 5525
56. Masazhar ANI, Kamal MM (2018) Digital image processing technique for palm oil leaf disease
detection using multiclass SVM classifier. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Smart Instrumen-
tation, Measurement and Applications, ICSIMA 2017 2017-Novem(November). pp 1–6. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICSIMA.2017.8311978
57. Meja-Lavalle M, Lara CP, Ascencio JR (2013) The mpeg-7 visual descriptors: A basic survey. In:
2013 International Conference on Mechatronics, Electronics and Automotive Engineering, pp 115–
120. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMEAE.2013.46
58. Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare GoI (2018) Annual Report 2018-19, Ministry of Agri-
culture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. http://agricoop.nic.in/annual-report, accessed
15-June-2019
59. Mohan KJ, Balasubramanian M, Palanivel S (2016) Detection and Recognition of Diseases from
Paddy Plant Leaf Images. Int J Comput Appl 144(12):34–41. www.ijcaonline.org
60. Mohanty SP, Hughes DP, Salathé M (2016) Using Deep Learning for Image-Based Plant Disease
Detection. Front Plant Sci 7(September):1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01419
61. Mokhtar U, El Bendary N, Hassenian AE, Emary E, Mahmoud MA, Hefny H, Tolba MF (2015) Svm-
based detection of tomato leaves diseases. Intelligent Systems’2014. Springer International Publishing,
Cham, pp 641–652
13
62. Ojala T, Pietikinen M, Harwood D (1996) A comparative study of texture measures with classification
based on featured distributions. Pattern Recogn 29(1):51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-3203(95)
00067-4. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031320395000674
63. Orillo JW, Dela Cruz J, Agapito L, Satimbre PJ, Valenzuela I (2014) Identification of diseases in rice
plant (oryza sativa) using back propagation artificial neural network. In: 2014 International Conference
on Humanoid, Nanotechnology, Information Technology, Communication and Control, Environment
and Management (HNICEM). pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/HNICEM.2014.7016248
64. Pantazi XE, Moshou D, Tamouridou AA (2019) Automated leaf disease detection in different crop
species through image features analysis and One Class Classifiers. Comput Electron Agric 156(July
2018):96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.11.005
65. Patil P, Yaligar N, Meena S (2017) Comparision of Performance of Classifiers - SVM, RF and ANN
in Potato Blight Disease Detection Using Leaf Images. 2017 IEEE International Conference on
Computational Intelligence and Computing Research, ICCIC 2017. pp 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICCIC.2017.8524301
66. Phadikar S, Sil J (2008) Rice disease identification using pattern recognition techniques. In: Proceedings of
11th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology, ICCIT 2008, Iccit, pp 420–423.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCITECHN.2008.4803079
67. Phadikar S, Sil J, Das AK (2012) Classification of Rice Leaf Diseases Based on Morphological
Changes. IJIEE 2(3):460–463
68. Phadikar S, Sil J, Das AK (2013) Rice diseases classification using feature selection and rule generation
techniques. Comput Electron Agric 90:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2012.11.001
69. Pires RDL, Gonçalves DN, Oruê JPM, Kanashiro WES, Rodrigues JF, Machado BB, Gonçalves WN
(2016) Local descriptors for soybean disease recognition. Comput Electron Agric 125:48–55. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.04.032
70. Prajapati BS, Dabhi VK, Prajapati HB (2016) A survey on detection and classification of cotton leaf
diseases. International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques, ICEEOT
2016:2499–2506. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEEOT.2016.7755143
71. Prasad S, Kumar P, Hazra R, Kumar A (2012) Plant Leaf Disease Detection Using Gabor Wavelet.
In: SEMCCO 2012, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 372–379
72. Pujari JD, Yakkundimath R, Byadgi AS (2015) Image processing based detection of fungal diseases
in plants. Procedia Computer Science 46(Icict 2014):1802–1808. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/
retrieve/pii/S187705091500201X
73. Pujari JD, Yakkundimath R, Byadgi AS (2016) SVM and ANN based classification of plant dis-
eases using feature reduction technique. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Arti-
ficial Intelligence 3(7):6. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2016.371
74. Pydipati R, Burks TF, Lee WS (2006) Identification of citrus disease using color texture features and discri-
minant analysis. Comput Electron Agric 52(1–2):49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2006.01.004
75. Ramakrishnan M, Sahaya Anselin Nisha A (2015) Groundnut leaf disease detection and classification
by using back probagation algorithm. In: 2015 International Conference on Communications and Signal
Processing (ICCSP), IEEE, 7092512506, pp 0964–0968. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7322641/
76. Ramesh S, Vinod PV, Niveditha M, Pooja R, Prasad Bhat N, Shashank N, Hebbar R (2018) Plant
disease detection using machine learning. Proceedings - 2018 International Conference on Design
Innovations for 3Cs Compute Communicate Control, ICDI3C 2018 pp 41–45. https://doi.org/10.
1109/ICDI3C.2018.00017
77. Renugopal K, Senthilraja B (2015) Application of image processing techniques in computer
graphics algorithms. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
4(3):919–923
78. Revathi P, Hemalatha M (2014) Cotton leaf spot diseases detection utilizing feature selection with
skew divergence method. Int J Eng Sci Technol 3(1):22–30
79. Rothe PR, Kshirsagar RV (2015) Cotton leaf disease identification using pattern recognition tech-
niques. 2015 International Conference on Pervasive Computing: Advance Communication Technology
and Application for Society, ICPC 2015 00(c). https://doi.org/10.1109/PERVASIVE.2015.7086983
80. Sabrol H, Kumar S (2016a) Fuzzy and neural network based tomato plant disease classification
using natural outdoor images. Indian J Sci Technol 9(November):1–8. https://doi.org/10.17485/
ijst/2016/v9i44/92825
81. Sabrol H, Kumar S (2016b) Intensity based feature extraction for tomato plant disease recognition
by classification using decision tree. Int J Comput Sci Inf Secur (IJCSIS) 14(9):622–626
82. Sabrol H, Kumar S (2017) Recognition of tomato late blight by using DWT and component analysis.
Int J Electr Comput Eng (IJECE) 7(1):194–199. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v7i1.11531
13
83. Samajpati BJ, Degadwala SD (2016) Hybrid approach for apple fruit diseases detection and classifica-
tion using random forest classifier. International Conference on Communication and Signal Processing
2013:1015–1019
84. Sannakki SS, Rajpurohit VS, Nargund VB, Kulkarni P (2013) Diagnosis and Classification of
Grape Leaf Diseases using Neural Networks. Fourth International Conference on Computing,
Communications and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), 2013, pp 1–5
85. Sengar N, Kishore M, Travieso CM (2018) Computer vision based technique for identifica-
tion and quantification of powdery mildew disease in cherry leaves. Computing 100(11):1189–
1201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-018-0638-1
86. Sharif M, Attique M, Iqbal Z, Faisal M, Ullah MI, Younus M (2018) Detection and classi fi cation
of citrus diseases in agriculture based on optimized weighted segmentation and feature selection.
Comput Electron Agric 150(May 2017):220–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.04.023
87. Shinde RC, Mathew CJ, Patil C (2015) Segmentation technique for soybean leaves disease detection.
Int J Adv Res 3(5):522–528
88. Shrivastava S, Hooda DS (2014) Automatic brown spot and frog eye detection from the image captured
in the field. Am J Int Syst 4(4):131–134. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ajis.20140404.01, http://article.sapub.
org/pdf/10.5923.j.ajis.20140404.01.pdf
89. Singh K, Kumar S, Kaur P (2019) Automatic detection of rust disease of Lentil by machine learning system
using microscopic images. Int J Electr Comput Eng 9(1):660–666. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v9i1.pp.
660-666
90. Singh V, Misra AK (2017) Detection of plant leaf diseases using image segmentation and soft
computing techniques. Inf Process Agric 4(1):41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2016.10.005
91. Singh V, Gupta S, Saini S (2015) A methodological survey of image segmentation using soft computing tech-
niques. Conference Proceeding - 2015 International Conference on Advances in Computer Engineering
and Applications, ICACEA 2015 pp 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACEA.2015.7164741
92. Stanchev P, Amato G, Falchi F, Gennaro C, Rabitti F, Savino P (2004) Selection of mpeg-7 image
features for improving image similarity search on specific data sets. In: 7th IASTED International
Conference on Computer Graphics and Imaging (CGIM 2004), Acta Press, pp 395–400
93. Sudha V P (2017) Feature selection techniques for the classification of leaf diseases in turmeric.
International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology 43(3):138–142. http://www.ijcttjournal.org
94. Tian Y, Zhao C, Lu S (2013) Multiple classifier combination for recognition of wheat leaf diseases. Intelligent
Automation & Soft Computing (October 2014):37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10798587.2011.10643166
95. Vishnoi VK, Kumar K, Kumar B (2020) Plant disease detection using computational intelligence and
image processing. J Plant Dis Prot https://doi.org/10.1007/s41348-020-00368-0
96. Waghmare H, Kokare R, Dandawate Y (2016) Detection and classification of diseases of grape plant using
opposite colour local binary pattern feature and machine learning for automated decision support system.
In: 2016 3rd International Conference on Signal Processing and Integrated Networks (SPIN), pp 513–518
97. Wang L, Dong F, Guo Q, Nie C, Sun S (2014) Improved rotation kernel transformation directional feature
for recognition of wheat stripe rust and powdery mildew. Proceedings - 2014 7th International Congress
on Image and Signal Processing. CISP 2014:286–291. https://doi.org/10.1109/CISP.2014.7003793
98. Yang M, Kpalma K, Ronsin J (2008) A survey of shape feature extraction techniques. In: Yin PY (ed)
Pattern Recognition, IN-TECH, pp 43–90. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00446037
99. Yao Q, Guan Z, Zhou Y, Tang J, Hu Y, Yang B (2009) Application of support vector machine for detect-
ing rice diseases using shape and color texture features. 2009 International Conference on Engineering
Computation, ICEC 2009 pp 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEC.2009.73
100. Zhang D, Zhou X, Zhang J, Lan Y, Xu C, Liang D (2018a) Detection of rice sheath blight using an
unmanned aerial system with high-resolution color and multispectral imaging. PLoS ONE 13(5):1–
14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187470
101. Zhang M, Meng Q (2011) Automatic citrus canker detection from leaf images captured in field. Pattern
Recogn Lett 32(15):2036–2046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2011.08.003
102. Zhang S, Wu X, You Z, Zhang L (2017a) Leaf image based cucumber disease recognition using
sparse representation classification. Comput Electron Agric 134:135–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compag.2017.01.014
103. Zhang S, Zhu Y, You Z, Wu X (2017b) Fusion of superpixel, expectation maximization and PHOG for
recognizing cucumber diseases. Comput Electron Agric 140:338–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.
2017.06.016
104. Zhang S, Wang H, Huang W, You Z (2018b) Plant diseased leaf segmentation and recognition by
fusion of superpixel, K-means and PHOG. Optik - International Journal for Light and Electron Optics
157:866–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2017.11.190
13
105. Zhang YC, Mao HP, Hu B, Li MX (2008) Features selection of cotton disease leaves image based on
fuzzy feature selection techniques. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Wavelet Analysis
and Pattern Recognition, ICWAPR ’07 1:124–129. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICWAPR.2007.4420649
106. Zhang Z, Li Y, Wang F, He X (2014) A particle swarm optimization algorithm for neural networks in
recognition of maize leaf diseases. Sensors & Transducers 166(3):181–189. https://www.sensorsportal.
com/HTML/DIGEST/P_1923.htm
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13

Articulo 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Articulo 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multimedia Tools and Applications (2022) 81:367–419

A comprehensive study of feature extraction techniques

Vibhor Kumar Vishnoi1 · Krishan Kumar1 · Brajesh Kumar2

Received: 22 September 2020 / Revised: 21 January 2021 / Accepted: 26 July 2021/

* Vibhor Kumar Vishnoi

2 A general architecture of plant disease detection system

Computer vision/image processing with computational intelligence and soft computing

Color space conversion,

Region growing based, Edge based,

SVM, ANN, DT,

Fig. 1 General Architecture of the Plant Disease Classification System

2.3 Region of interest identification

2.4 Feature extraction and selection

Image feature is a piece of information related to a content/object which helps to recognize

Classification techniques such as k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), support vector machine

3 A review of feature extraction methods

The visual similarities in symptoms of different disorders in a single or in multiple cultures

3.1 Texture features extraction

3.1.1 Gray level co‑occurrence matrices

4. Angular Second Moment

6. Inverse Difference Moment

where, f7 is the sum entropy and calculated using Eq. 11.

10. Difference Entropy

11. Difference Variance

12. Difference Entropy

13. Correlation Information

Here, HX and HY represent entropy values of px , py and,

14. Correlation Information

f13 = (1 − exp[−2.0(HXY2 − HXY)])0.5 (20)

where HXY is calculated using Eq. 18 and HXY2 is defined below:

15. Maximal Correlation coefficient

f14 = (Second largest eigenvalue value of R)0.5

3.1.2 Local Binary Pattern

1. Local Ternary Pattern

and tI represents is a threshold, which is generally defined by average intensity of the

Thus, the image texture can be found approximately as

3.1.3 Scale invariant feature transform

1. Locating scale-space maxima and key points

in 12800-direction. Aduwo et al. [2] also prepared a set of descriptors to investigate presence

v = − s sin 𝜃 + t cos 𝜃 (39)

3.1.5 Discrete wavelet transform

𝜓m,n (t) = 2−m∕2 𝜓(2−m t − n) (41)

3.1.6 Speed‑up robust features

1. Key value localization

3.1.7 Histogram of oriented gradients

4. L1 − sqrt : which consists of square root after L1 − normalization .

Gy (s, t) =I(s, t + 1) − I(s, t − 1) (51)

3.2 Color feature extraction

i�min (s, t) =arg min||pmin (s, t), cmin

i�max (s, t) =arg min ||pmax (s, t), cmax

Finally, color histogram CHFmin from min quantizer is viewed as:

1. First Order Moment

2. Second Order Moment

3. Third Order Moment

3.2.3 Color co‑occurrence matrix

3.3 Shape features extraction

where A is contour area.

where major axis and minor axis length is calculated using

for p, q = 1, 2, 3, … and u = and v = are centroid components of image. And, the

3.4 Combination of feature extraction techniques (texture, color, and shape)

A combination of multiple features is also used in the analysis of plant disorders. To

3.5 Feature extraction using MPEG‑7 visual descriptors

3.6 Feature extraction using deep Learning

Input Image Convolution FC

2 A general architecture of plant disease detection system

Fig. 1 General Architecture of the Plant Disease Classification System

2.3 Region of interest identification

2.4 Feature extraction and selection

3 A review of feature extraction methods

3.1 Texture features extraction

3.1.1 Gray level co‑occurrence matrices

3.1.2 Local Binary Pattern

3.1.3 Scale invariant feature transform

3.1.5 Discrete wavelet transform

3.1.6 Speed‑up robust features

3.1.7 Histogram of oriented gradients

3.2 Color feature extraction

3.2.3 Color co‑occurrence matrix

3.3 Shape features extraction

3.4 Combination of feature extraction techniques (texture, color, and shape)

3.5 Feature extraction using MPEG‑7 visual descriptors

3.6 Feature extraction using deep Learning

3.7 Computational cost based comparison of commonly used feature extraction

Table 2 Merits and demerits of most commonly used feature extraction techniques

5 Conclusion and future scope