| Literature DB >> 36092436 |
Zhixian Lin1, Rongmei Fu1, Guoqiang Ren1, Renhai Zhong1, Yibin Ying1,2, Tao Lin1,2.
Abstract
Fresh weight is a widely used growth indicator for quantifying crop growth. Traditional fresh weight measurement methods are time-consuming, laborious, and destructive. Non-destructive measurement of crop fresh weight is urgently needed in plant factories with high environment controllability. In this study, we proposed a multi-modal fusion based deep learning model for automatic estimation of lettuce shoot fresh weight by utilizing RGB-D images. The model combined geometric traits from empirical feature extraction and deep neural features from CNN. A lettuce leaf segmentation network based on U-Net was trained for extracting leaf boundary and geometric traits. A multi-branch regression network was performed to estimate fresh weight by fusing color, depth, and geometric features. The leaf segmentation model reported a reliable performance with a mIoU of 0.982 and an accuracy of 0.998. A total of 10 geometric traits were defined to describe the structure of the lettuce canopy from segmented images. The fresh weight estimation results showed that the proposed multi-modal fusion model significantly improved the accuracy of lettuce shoot fresh weight in different growth periods compared with baseline models. The model yielded a root mean square error (RMSE) of 25.3 g and a coefficient of determination (R 2) of 0.938 over the entire lettuce growth period. The experiment results demonstrated that the multi-modal fusion method could improve the fresh weight estimation performance by leveraging the advantages of empirical geometric traits and deep neural features simultaneously.Entities:
Keywords: convolution neural network; deep learning; fresh weight; growth monitoring; lettuce; multi-modal fusion
Year: 2022 PMID: 36092436 PMCID: PMC9458202 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.980581
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
An overview of existing image-based methods for lettuce fresh weight monitoring.
| Method type | Input data types | Sample sizes | Methods | Descriptions | References |
| Empirical feature extraction | RGB | / | Traditional image processing + quadratic regression | Regression by projected area from top view images |
|
| RGB | 82 | Traditional image processing + linear regression | Regression by pixel counting from top view images | ||
| RGB | / | OpenCV-based segmentation + linear regression | Regression by extracted 2D and 3D geometric features from a stereo-vision system | ||
| 3D point clouds | 230 | Rule-based segmentation + linear regression | Regression by extracted geometric features from colored 3D point clouds. |
| |
| RGB | 338 | Optical flow analysis + gradient boost regression | Regression by extracted leaf movement features from top view images. |
| |
| RGB | 750 | CNN segmentation + linear regression | Regression by extracted geometric features from the side and top view images |
| |
| End-to-end deep learning | RGB | 286 | CNN regression | Regression directly by a CNN model |
|
| RGB-D | 3,888 | CNN regression | Regression directly by an RGB-D fusion CNN network |
|
FIGURE 1Examples of RGB images (cropped) of the AGC dataset.
FIGURE 2The structure of the U-Net based leaf segmentation network.
Geometric traits extracted from the segmented images.
| Traits type | Traits | Description |
| Size related | PA | Projected area |
| PP | Projected perimeter | |
| CA | Convex hull area | |
| CP | Convex hull perimeter | |
| PCD | Circumcircle diameter of the projected area | |
| ARW | Width of minimal area rectangle of the projected area | |
| ARH | Height of minimal area rectangle of the projected area | |
| Morphology-related | PPR | Projected area/projected perimeter |
| CPR | Convex hull area/convex hull perimeter | |
| CAR | Projected area/convex hull area |
FIGURE 3Overall structure of the multi-branch regression network.
FIGURE 4Data distribution of the AGC dataset: (A) sample size of the four varieties, and (B) fresh weight distribution of the four varieties.
Pixel-level accuracy indices of the leaf segmentation network.
| Class | mIoU | Accuracy | IoU | F1 score | Precision | Recall | |
| Training set | Leaf | 0.988 | 0.998 | 0.978 | 0.989 | 0.989 | 0.989 |
| Background | 0.998 | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.999 | |||
| Test set | Leaf | 0.982 | 0.998 | 0.968 | 0.983 | 0.984 | 0.983 |
| Background | 0.997 | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.999 |
FIGURE 5Qualitative results obtained by the leaf segmentation network. 10 samples (A–J) were randomly selected.
FIGURE 6Data distribution of extracted geometric traits of the four lettuce varieties in 7 weeks.
Correlation coefficients between fresh weight and geometric traits of lettuce.
| FW | PA | PP | ARW | ARH | PCD | CA | CP | PPR | CPR | CAR | |
| FW | 1 | ||||||||||
| PA | 0.904 | 1 | |||||||||
| PP | 0.799 | 0.945 | 1 | ||||||||
| ARW | 0.856 | 0.963 | 0.944 | 1 | |||||||
| ARH | 0.838 | 0.955 | 0.928 | 0.896 | 1 | ||||||
| PCD | 0.862 | 0.980 | 0.967 | 0.968 | 0.962 | 1 | |||||
| CA | 0.885 | 0.997 | 0.959 | 0.964 | 0.955 | 0.985 | 1 | ||||
| CP | 0.868 | 0.986 | 0.965 | 0.973 | 0.970 | 0.994 | 0.988 | 1 | |||
| PPR | 0.876 | 0.933 | 0.817 | 0.906 | 0.919 | 0.908 | 0.911 | 0.932 | 1 | ||
| CPR | 0.873 | 0.985 | 0.954 | 0.969 | 0.971 | 0.983 | 0.982 | 0.996 | 0.950 | 1 | |
| CAR | 0.607 | 0.627 | 0.500 | 0.600 | 0.632 | 0.575 | 0.579 | 0.622 | 0.807 | 0.674 | 1 |
FW, fresh weight. ***Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level.
Fresh weight estimation result of different models in the test set.
| With data augmentation | Without data augmentation | |||||
|
|
| |||||
| RMSE/g | MAPE (%) |
| RMSE/g | MAPE (%) |
| |
| RGB + D + G | 25.3 | 17.7 | 0.938 | 30.3 | 21.6 | 0.910 |
| RGB + G | 25.5 | 18.2 | 0.936 | 29.3 | 23.1 | 0.916 |
| D + G | 31.2 | 21.2 | 0.905 | 35.9 | 48.2 | 0.874 |
| RGB + D | 29.5 | 19.6 | 0.915 | 36.0 | 27.8 | 0.873 |
| RGB only | 28.8 | 17.9 | 0.919 | 30.4 | 39.9 | 0.910 |
| D only | 32.0 | 25.8 | 0.900 | 37.8 | 44.6 | 0.861 |
| G only | / | / | / | 37.9 | 34.8 | 0.860 |
D, depth; G, geometric features.
FIGURE 7Scatter plots between predicted and observed fresh weight for the test set of augmented models (A) RGB + D + G, (B) RGB + G, (C) D + G, (D) RGB + D, (E) RGB only, and (F) D only. The red solid lines represent the fitting lines, and the gray dotted lines represent the 1:1 lines.
The triple-branch fusion network’s performance of each lettuce varieties.
| Variety | RMSE | MAPE (%) |
|
| Aphylion | 29.9 | 17.4 | 0.927 |
| Salanova | 30.3 | 24.2 | 0.899 |
| Lugano | 21.3 | 14.0 | 0.964 |
| Satine | 16.6 | 15.3 | 0.956 |
| All | 25.3 | 17.7 | 0.938 |