| Literature DB >> 32612632 |
Jun Liu1, Xuewei Wang1.
Abstract
Tomato is affected by various diseases and pests during its growth process. If the control is not timely, it will lead to yield reduction or even crop failure. How to control the diseases and pests effectively and help the vegetable farmers to improve the yield of tomato is very important, and the most important thing is to accurately identify the diseases and insect pests. Compared with the traditional pattern recognition method, the diseases and pests recognition method based on deep learning can directly input the original image. Instead of the tedious steps such as image preprocessing, feature extraction and feature classification in the traditional method, the end-to-end structure is adopted to simplify the recognition process and solve the problem that the feature extractor designed manually is difficult to obtain the feature expression closest to the natural attribute of the object. Based on the application of deep learning object detection, not only can save time and effort, but also can achieve real-time judgment, greatly reduce the huge loss caused by diseases and pests, which has important research value and significance. Based on the latest research results of detection theory based on deep learning object detection and the characteristics of tomato diseases and pests images, this study will build the dataset of tomato diseases and pests under the real natural environment, optimize the feature layer of Yolo V3 model by using image pyramid to achieve multi-scale feature detection, improve the detection accuracy and speed of Yolo V3 model, and detect the location and category of diseases and pests of tomato accurately and quickly. Through the above research, the key technology of tomato pest image recognition in natural environment is broken through, which provides reference for intelligent recognition and engineering application of plant diseases and pests detection.Entities:
Keywords: K-means; deep learning; multiscale training; object detection; small object
Year: 2020 PMID: 32612632 PMCID: PMC7309963 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00898
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Contrast between traditional machine learning and deep learning.
| Technology | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Machine learning | It has advantages in training small data samples. No need of expensive hardware. The algorithm structure is simple and parameter adjustment is relatively simple. | Needs complex feature engineering and data dimensionality reduction. The classification accuracy is low and difficult for image recognition in complex background. |
| Deep learning | The deep feature extraction function makes it perform well in image, audio, and text data. Easy to update data through back propagation. Different architectures are suitable for different problems. The hidden layer reduces the dependence of algorithm on feature engineering. | The requirement of machine configuration is high. Needs massive data and relies on large-scale datasets. |
Figure 1Darknet-53 network structure.
Figure 2The improved Yolo V3 network structure (A) network structure; (B) conv-residual unit.
Figure 3Feature Fusion Pyramid.
Figure 4Improved network structure.
Figure 5Conversion of full connection layer to convolution layer. (A) Full connection operation. (B) Convulation operation.
Configuration of experimental hardware environment.
| Hardware name | Model | Number |
|---|---|---|
| Main board | Asus WS X299 SAGE | 1 |
| CPU | INTEL I7-9800X | 1 |
| Memory | The Kingston 16G DDR4 | 2 |
| Graphics card | GEFORCE GTX1080Ti | 2 |
| Solid state drives | Kingston 256G | 1 |
| Hard disk | Western digital 1T | 1 |
Number of samples of each disease type.
| Serial Number | Disease/Pest | Sample size | Number of labeled samples (bounding box) | Percent of bounding box samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Early blight | 1,209 | 12,187 | 8.30% |
| 2 | Late blight | 1,303 | 12,362 | 8.41% |
| 3 | Yellow leaf curl virus | 1,286 | 12,138 | 8.26% |
| 4 | Brown spot | 1,348 | 11,726 | 7.98% |
| 5 | Coal pollution | 1,287 | 13,025 | 8.87% |
| 6 | Gray mold | 1,263 | 12,184 | 8.29% |
| 7 | Leaf mold | 1,377 | 12,399 | 8.44% |
| 8 | Navel rot | 1,106 | 12,026 | 8.19% |
| 9 | Leaf curl disease | 1,198 | 11,734 | 7.99% |
| 10 | Mosaic | 1,242 | 13,092 | 8.91% |
| 11 | Leaf miner | 1,228 | 11,580 | 7.88% |
| 12 | Greenhouse whitefly | 1,153 | 12,459 | 8.48% |
| Total | 15,000 | 146,912 | 100.00% |
Model parameter settings.
| Name | Value |
|---|---|
| Batch Size | 64 |
| Learning Rate | 0.01 |
| Epoch | 13,000 |
| Momentum | 0.9 |
| Match Threshold | 0.5 |
| NMS | 0.3 |
Comparison of experimental results.
| Algorithm name | Accuracy (%) | Time/(ms) |
|---|---|---|
| SSD | 84.32 | 25.69 |
| Faster R-CNN | 90.67 | 2868.94 |
| Yolo V3 | 88.31 | 21.18 |
| Improved Yolo V3 | 92.39 | 20.39 |
Figure 6Loss function contrast.
Figure 7Object size sensitivity analysis of four algorithms.
Figure 8Object image resolution sensitivity analysis of four algorithms.
Figure 9The detection effect diagram of the improved YOLO v3 algorithm (A) Early bight; (B) Gray mold; (C) Late blight; (D) Leaf mold; (E) Leaf miner; (F) Whitefly.