| Literature DB >> 35685012 |
Jiayu Suo1, Jialei Zhan1, Guoxiong Zhou1, Aibin Chen1, Yaowen Hu1, Weiqi Huang1, Weiwei Cai1, Yahui Hu2, Liujun Li3.
Abstract
Grape disease is a significant contributory factor to the decline in grape yield, typically affecting the leaves first. Efficient identification of grape leaf diseases remains a critical unmet need. To mitigate background interference in grape leaf feature extraction and improve the ability to extract small disease spots, by combining the characteristic features of grape leaf diseases, we developed a novel method for disease recognition and classification in this study. First, Gaussian filters Sobel smooth de-noising Laplace operator (GSSL) was employed to reduce image noise and enhance the texture of grape leaves. A novel network designated coordinated attention shuffle mechanism-asymmetric multi-scale fusion module net (CASM-AMFMNet) was subsequently applied for grape leaf disease identification. CoAtNet was employed as the network backbone to improve model learning and generalization capabilities, which alleviated the problem of gradient explosion to a certain extent. The CASM-AMFMNet was further utilized to capture and target grape leaf disease areas, therefore reducing background interference. Finally, Asymmetric multi-scale fusion module (AMFM) was employed to extract multi-scale features from small disease spots on grape leaves for accurate identification of small target diseases. The experimental results based on our self-made grape leaf image dataset showed that, compared to existing methods, CASM-AMFMNet achieved an accuracy of 95.95%, F1 score of 95.78%, and mAP of 90.27%. Overall, the model and methods proposed in this report could successfully identify different diseases of grape leaves and provide a feasible scheme for deep learning to correctly recognize grape diseases during agricultural production that may be used as a reference for other crops diseases.Entities:
Keywords: CASM-AMFMNet; GSSL; coordinate attention shuffle mechanism asymmetric; grape leaf diseases; image enhancement; multi-scale fusion module
Year: 2022 PMID: 35685012 PMCID: PMC9171378 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.846767
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
FIGURE 1A working principle diagram of the system.
Number and proportion of grape leaf images.
| Category | Example | Number (Before) | Proportion/ % (Before) | Number (After) | Proportion/ % (After) |
| Healthy | 814 | 23.88 | 3,166 | 20.02 | |
|
| |||||
| Black rot | 725 | 21.27 | 3,148 | 19.89 | |
|
| |||||
| Black Measles | 669 | 19.62 | 3,175 | 20.06 | |
|
| |||||
| Leaf blight | , | 674 | 19.77 | 3,154 | 19.93 |
|
| |||||
| Downy Mildew | 527 | 15.46 | 3,181 | 20.10 | |
|
|
FIGURE 2Eight transformation images of downy mildew as an example.
FIGURE 3A Gaussian filters Sobel smooth de-noising Laplace operator (GSSL) enhancement effect chart for five grape leaves.
FIGURE 4Coordinated attention shuffle mechanism-asymmetric multi-scale fusion module net (CASM-AMFMNet) structure.
FIGURE 5Coordinate attention shuffle mechanism (CASM) module structure.
FIGURE 6Asymmetric multi-scale fusion module (AMFM) structure.
Hardware and software environment.
| Hardware environment | CPU | Intel Core i7-6800 K 3.40 GHz 15 MB |
| RAM | 64 GB | |
| Video memory | 32 GB | |
| GPU | NVIDIA GTX 2080ti | |
|
| Operating system | Windows 10 |
| CUDA Toolkit | V11.1 | |
| CUDNN | V8.0.4 | |
| Python | 3.8.8 | |
| Torch | 1.8.1 | |
| Torch vision | 0.9.1 | |
| Matlab | 2020a |
Parameter setting.
| Parameter category | Parameter name | Parameter setting |
| AdamW | Initial learning rate | 0.001 |
| Weight decay | 1 × 10–4 | |
| Momentum | 0.9 | |
| Learning rate decay | 0.1 | |
| Input data parameters | Size of input images | (224,224) |
| Minibatch | 32 | |
| Iteration Epochs | 30 | |
| Iteration Number | 37,950 |
FIGURE 7Comparison experiments of different data enhancement effects.
Enhanced image quality parameters.
| Method | Mean | PSNR | Entropy |
| Original image | 132.17 | 27.49 | 7.55 |
| EGIF ( | 135.91 | 29.63 | 7.64 |
| WGIF ( | 110.23 | 31.08 | 7.25 |
| HSFGTF ( | 128.25 | 28.70 | 7.00 |
| GFCBH ( | 95.16 | 35.12 | 6.99 |
| WLS ( | 119.32 | 35.04 | 7.81 |
| GSSL | 148.61 | 37.87 | 7.94 |
FIGURE 8Accuracy curves of the CoAtNet and the coordinated attention shuffle mechanism-asymmetric multi-scale fusion module net (CASM-AMFMNet).
Performance comparison of CoAtNet and coordinated attention shuffle mechanism-asymmetric multi-scale fusion module net (CASM-AMFMNet).
| Method | CoAtNet | CASM-AMFMNet |
| Accuracy | 88.74% | 95.95% |
| mAP | 79.49% | 90.27% |
| FPS | 44 | 85 |
| Param | 168 M | 166 M |
| FLOPs | 189.5 B | 187.8 B |
| MFLOPs | 632.79 MB | 4.67 MB |
| Running time per batch | 586 s | 270 s |
| Time required per epoch | 169.86 min | 60.25 min |
Experimental results for different backbone networks.
| Models | Eval size | Params | FLOPs | Accuracy |
| CoAtNet-1 | 2242 | 55 M | 49.8 B | 89.56% |
| CoAtNet-2 | 2242 | 75 M | 96.7 B | 92.45% |
| CoAtNet-3 | 2242 | 96 M | 126.1 B | 93.98% |
| CoAtNet-4 | 2242 | 121 M | 149.8 B | 94.77% |
| CoAtNet-5 | 2242 | 166 M | 187.8 B | 95.95% |
| CoAtNet-6 | 2242 | 275 M | 289.8 B | 95.98% |
| CoAtNet-7 | 2242 | 330 M | 360.9 B | 96.01% |
Comparison result of different groups.
| Group number | Test accuracy | mAP | Testing time | Params | Flops |
| G = 2 | 95.95 | 90.25% | 11.33 | 166.63 M | 189.5 B |
| G = 4 | 95.95 | 90.27% | 10.87 | 166.41 M | 188.9 B |
| G = 8 | 95.95 | 90.23% | 11.83 | 166.30 M | 188.6 B |
Exploring the combination of normalized processing and activation functions.
| Method | mAP | Param | Training time |
| BN+ReLU | 80.31% | 167.33 M | 4 h 48 min 29 s |
| BN+Sigmoid | 79.85% | 167.95 M | 4 h 58 min 57 s |
| BN+SELU | 81.07% | 166.53 M | 4 h 16 min 42 s |
| SN+ReLU | 80.91% | 167.35 M | 4 h 50 min 03 s |
| SN+Sigmoid | 80.45% | 167.97 M | 4 h 59 min 44 s |
| SN+SELU | 81.67% | 166.55 M | 4 h 18 min 09 s |
Effect of shuffle on the model.
| CASM-AMFMNet (no Shuffle) | CASM-AMFMNet (with Shuffle) | |
| mAP | 89.93% | 90.27% |
| FLOPs | 189.5 B | 189.5 B |
| param | 166 M | 166 M |
FIGURE 9Effects of different attention modules of coordinate attention shuffle mechanism (CASM) and CAM on model recognition ability.
Experimental results of adding an attention mechanism to different positions and numbers.
| Location | Number | mAP | FLOPs |
| Add CASM module to CoAtNet | ×1 | 89.62% | 189.5 B |
| ×2 | 89.45% | 190.1 B | |
| Add CASM module after CoAtNet | ×1 | 90.27% | 189.5 B |
| ×2 | 90.10% | 190.1 B | |
| Add CASM module after AMFM | ×1 | 90.03% | 189.5 B |
| ×2 | 89.86% | 190.1 B |
A single ablation experiment of asymmetric multi-scale fusion module (AMFM).
| Method | mAP | Params | FLOPs | Testing time |
| CoAtNet with MSFM | 82.10% | 169.31 M | 191.0 B | 35.41 s |
| CoAtNet with MSFM (ACB) | 83.44% | 168.98 M | 190.3 B | 33.33 s |
| CoAtNet with MSFM (SELU) | 84.03% | 168.85 M | 189.9 B | 32.08 s |
| CoAtNet with AMFM | 85.37% | 168.52 M | 189.2 B | 29.13 s |
FIGURE 10Ablation experiments.
FIGURE 11A confusion matrix for the identification of grape leaf diseases.
Performance evaluation of four types of networks.
| Class | Evaluation metrics | Black rot | Black measles | Leaf blight | Downy mildew | Healthy leaves | Average value |
| DICNN | Accuracy | 97.31% | 96.68% | 97.63% | 97.56% | 96.71% | 97.18% |
| Precision | 93.28% | 94.44% | 93.71% | 92.73% | 93.63% | 93.56% | |
| Recall | 94.27% | 95.32% | 96.75% | 97.21% | 86.22% | 93.95% | |
| F1 Score | 93.77% | 94.88% | 95.21% | 94.92% | 89.77% | 93.71% | |
| DMS-R Alexnet ( | Accuracy | 97.31% | 96.68% | 97.63% | 97.56% | 96.71% | 97.18% |
| Precision | 93.43% | 92.58% | 95.53% | 90.96% | 92.15% | 92.93% | |
| Recall | 93.85% | 91.31% | 92.32% | 95.18% | 92.42% | 93.02% | |
| F1 Score | 93.64% | 91.94% | 93.90% | 93.02% | 92.28% | 92.96% | |
| Faster DR-IACNN | Accuracy | 98.23% | 98.20% | 98.16% | 97.28% | 95.41% | 97.46% |
| Precision | 93.58% | 94.28% | 93.05% | 93.26% | 93.93% | 93.62% | |
| Recall | 94.71% | 96.06% | 97.91% | 95.46% | 85.91% | 94.01% | |
| F1 Score | 94.14% | 95.16% | 95.42% | 94.35% | 89.74% | 93.76% | |
| CASM-AMFM Net (ours) | Accuracy | 98.01% | 98.42% | 97.91% | 98.86% | 98.70% | 98.38% |
| Precision | 94.63% | 95.98% | 95.53% | 97.87% | 96.00% | 96.00% | |
| Recall | 95.92% | 96.28% | 93.67% | 95.83% | 97.89% | 95.92% | |
| F1 Score | 95.27% | 96.13% | 94.59% | 96.94% | 95.96% | 95.78% |
Comparison of the main performance of different methods.
| Method | A | P | R | F1 | mAP | Training time |
| DCNN ( | 83.87% | 84.73% | 81.29% | 82.97% | 80.77% | 4 h 04 min 12 s |
| MediNET ( | 76.99% | 76.83% | 77.29% | 77.06% | 78.39% | 5 h 58 min 27 s |
| YoloV4 ( | 63.42% | 59.21% | 68.35% | 63.45% | 71.29% | 3 h 6 min 45 s |
| VirLeafNet ( | 85.12% | 84.54% | 77.87% | 81.06% | 81.73% | 4 h 28 min 03 s |
| BGCNN ( | 91.59% | 91.20% | 91.00% | 91.10% | 84.44% | 3 h 32 min 57 s |
| DCGAN ( | 83.79% | 82.31% | 83.54% | 82.92% | 85.89% | 4 h 38 min 27 s |
| OPNN ( | 82.38% | 81.16% | 83.28% | 82.21% | 81.23% | 3 h 50 min 3 s |
| DICNN | 93.58% | 93.56% | 93.95% | 93.71% | 84.81% | 3 h 30 min 51 s |
| DMS-R Alexnet | 92.94% | 92.93% | 93.02% | 92.96% | 85.84% | 4 h 26 min 9 s |
| Faster DR-IACNN | 93.64% | 93.62% | 94.01% | 93.76% | 87.48% | 3 h 48 min 13 s |
| CASM-AMFM Net(ours) | 95.95% | 96.00% | 95.92% | 95.78% | 90.27% | 3 h 13 min 27 s |