| Literature DB >> 35669669 |
Yuke Lin1, Jin Xu2, Ying Zhang3.
Abstract
The traditional identification methods of Citrus aurantium diseases and pests are prone to convergence during the running process, resulting in low accuracy of identification. To this end, this study reviews the newest methods for the identification of Citrus aurantium diseases and pests based on a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN). The initial images of Citrus aurantium leaves are collected by hardware equipment and then preprocessed using the techniques of cropping, enhancement, and morphological transformation. By using the neural network to divide the disease spots of Citrus aurantium images, accurate recognition results are obtained through feature matching. The comparative experimental results show that, compared with the traditional recognition method, the recognition rate of the proposed method has increased by about 11.9%, indicating its better performance. The proposed method can overcome the interference of the external environment to a certain extent and can provide reference data for the prevention and control of Citrus aurantium diseases and pests.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35669669 PMCID: PMC9166991 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7012399
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Flow chart of the image acquisition of Citrus aurantium diseases and pests.
Figure 2Structure diagram of DCNN.
Figure 3Sigmoid function curve.
Figure 4Schematic diagram of training set samples in the experiment.
Experimental group setting.
| Serial number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of healthy citrus aurantium samples (piece) | 66 | 93 | 74 | 85 | 83 |
| Number of samples of fructus aurantii with leaf blight (piece) | 24 | 17 | 36 | 19 | 27 |
| Leaf spot disease fructus aurantii sample number (piece) | 31 | 25 | 40 | 22 | 25 |
| Powdery mildew fructus aurantii sample quantity (piece) | 45 | 28 | 11 | 25 | 23 |
| Number of samples of thrips citrus (piece) | 34 | 37 | 39 | 49 | 42 |
Results of recognition rate.
| Serial number | Number of correctly identified samples (piece) | Recognition rate (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Method of reference [ | 175 | 87.5 |
| 2 | 173 | 86.5 | |
| 3 | 171 | 85.5 | |
| 4 | 174 | 87 | |
| 5 | 177 | 88.5 | |
| Average | 174.0 | 87.0 | |
|
| |||
| 1 | Method of reference [ | 182 | 91 |
| 2 | 184 | 92 | |
| 3 | 185 | 92.5 | |
| 4 | 183 | 91.5 | |
| 5 | 181 | 90.5 | |
| Average | 183.0 | 91.5 | |
|
| |||
| 1 | Method of this paper | 196 | 98 |
| 2 | 199 | 99.5 | |
| 3 | 198 | 99 | |
| 4 | 199 | 99.5 | |
| 5 | 197 | 98.5 | |
| Average | 197.8 | 98.9 | |