| Literature DB >> 26343664 |
Arturo Aquino1, Borja Millan2, Daniel Gaston3, María-Paz Diago4, Javier Tardaguila5.
Abstract
Grapevine flowering and fruit set greatly determine crop yield. This paper presents a new smartphone application for automatically counting, non-invasively and directly in the vineyard, the flower number in grapevine inflorescence photos by implementing artificial vision techniques. The application, called vitisFlower(®), firstly guides the user to appropriately take an inflorescence photo using the smartphone's camera. Then, by means of image analysis, the flowers in the image are detected and counted. vitisFlower(®) has been developed for Android devices and uses the OpenCV libraries to maximize computational efficiency. The application was tested on 140 inflorescence images of 11 grapevine varieties taken with two different devices. On average, more than 84% of flowers in the captures were found, with a precision exceeding 94%. Additionally, the application's efficiency on four different devices covering a wide range of the market's spectrum was also studied. The results of this benchmarking study showed significant differences among devices, although indicating that the application is efficiently usable even with low-range devices. vitisFlower is one of the first applications for viticulture that is currently freely available on Google Play.Entities:
Keywords: Android application; OpenCV library; OpenCV4Android; Vitis vinifera L.; grapevine flower counting; image analysis; precision agriculture; precision viticulture; yield prediction
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26343664 PMCID: PMC4610574 DOI: 10.3390/s150921204
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1(a) Grapevine photo taken in the vineyard using black cardboard as the background; (b) result of the image analysis algorithm overviewed in Section 2.1 for automatically detecting flowers. Detected flower centers are marked with blue crosses.
Figure 2Architecture design of the vitisFlower® Android application.
Figure 3Flow-chart diagram of the vitisFlower® application illustrated with the application’s screenshots.
Main relevant features of the 2 devices used for evaluating the performance of the vitisFlower application.
| Feature | Price/Release Date | Sensor Model | Resolution | Lens Size | Aperture | ISO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Device | |||||||
| 549.0 €/2014 | Sony IMX220 | 20.7 Mpx | 1/2.3″ | f/2.0 | 50–800 | ||
| 209.90 €/2014 | Sony IMX214 | 13 Mpx | 1/3.2″ | f/2.2 | 100–1600 | ||
Main relevant features of the 4 devices used for evaluating the computational efficiency of the vitisFlower application.
| Feature | Price/Release Date | Chipset | CPU | GPU | RAM Memory | Android Version | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Device | |||||||
| 549.0 €/2014 | Qualcomm MSM8974AB Snapdragon 801 | Quad-core 2.3-GHz Krait 400 | Adreno 330 | 3 GB | 5.0.1 Jelly bean | ||
| 449.0 €/2014 | Qualcomm MSM8974AB Snapdragon 801 | Quad-core 2.3-GHz Krait 400 | Adreno 330 | 3 GB | 4.4.4 Kit kat | ||
| 209.90 €/2014 | MediaTek MT6582 | Quad-core 1.3-GHz ARM Cortex-A7 | Mali-400 MP2 | 1 GB | 4.4 Kit kat | ||
| 172.0 €/2013 | Qualcomm MSM8226 Snapdragon 400 | Quad-core 1.2-GHz Cortex-A7 | Adreno 305 | 1 GB | 4.4.2 Kit kat | ||
Performance evaluation of vitisFlower® using 2 different devices. The average Recall () and Precision () calculated from the 10 images in each grapevine variety are given.
| Sony Xperia Z2 | BQ Aquaris E5 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Variety | ||||
| Airen | 0.8223 | 0.9787 | Merlot | 0.9173 | 0.9517 |
| Cabernet Sauvignon | 0.8363 | 0.9615 | Cabernet Sauvignon | 0.8855 | 0.9531 |
| Chardonnay | 0.8770 | 0.9339 | Chenin Blanc | 0.7987 | 0.9563 |
| Grenache | 0.8045 | 0.9763 | Grenache | 0.8391 | 0.9685 |
| Riesling | 0.8411 | 0.9458 | Riesling | 0.9035 | 0.9212 |
| Syrah | 0.8889 | 0.9376 | Sauvignon Blanc | 0.8664 | 0.9557 |
| Tempranillo | 0.8308 | 0.9851 | Semillon | 0.8826 | 0.9158 |
Figure 4Box and whisker comparison plots for the Sony Xperia Z2 and the BQ Aquaris E5: (a) performance in terms of average Recall (); (b) performance comparison in terms of average Precision ().
Figure 5(a) Average and standard deviation of computation time for four different devices measured on the analysis of 50 images; (b) box and whisker plots for the same experiment shown in (a).