| Literature DB >> 35735969 |
Majed Alsanea1, Shabana Habib2, Noreen Fayyaz Khan3, Mohammed F Alsharekh4, Muhammad Islam5, Sheroz Khan5.
Abstract
Background and motivation: Over the last two decades, particularly in the Middle East, Red Palm Weevils (RPW, Rhynchophorus ferruginous) have proved to be the most destructive pest of palm trees across the globe. Problem: The RPW has caused considerable damage to various palm species. The early identification of the RPW is a challenging task for good date production since the identification will prevent palm trees from being affected by the RPW. This is one of the reasons why the use of advanced technology will help in the prevention of the spread of the RPW on palm trees. Many researchers have worked on finding an accurate technique for the identification, localization and classification of the RPW pest. This study aimed to develop a model that can use a deep-learning approach to identify and discriminate between the RPW and other insects living in palm tree habitats using a deep-learning technique. Researchers had not applied deep learning to the classification of red palm weevils previously.Entities:
Keywords: classification technique; deep learning approach; localization; red palm weevil; region convolution neural network
Year: 2022 PMID: 35735969 PMCID: PMC9224703 DOI: 10.3390/jimaging8060170
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Imaging ISSN: 2313-433X
Figure 1Proposed framework for the developed model.
Figure 2Block diagram of the proposed real-time system.
Different techniques of data augmentation.
| S. No. | Data Augmentation Technique | Parameter(s) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rotation | −90° |
| 2 | Skewness | Right |
| 3 | Flip | Bottom |
| 4 | Shear | Along |
Statistics of red palm weevil dataset.
| Dataset | No. of Images before Augmentation | Parameters of Augmentation Techniques | No. of Images after Augmentation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red palm weevil | 300 | 20 | 6000 |
Figure 3RPW dataset for the developed model.
Figure 4The overall architecture of the proposed model.
Figure 5RPW results of the proposed model.
Figure 6Graphical results of the proposed model.
Comparative analysis of the proposed model.
| S. No. | Algorithm | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | SVM | 93.08% |
| 2 | Naive Bayes | 82.58% |
| 3 | Random Forest | 93.08% |
| 4 | MLP | 93.08% |
| 5 | AdaBoost | 93.08% |
| 6 | Faster R-CNN | 99% |