| Literature DB >> 36160956 |
Zhiqiang Zhai1,2, Xuegeng Chen1,2, Ruoyu Zhang1,2, Fasong Qiu1,2, Qingjian Meng1,2, Jiankang Yang1,2, Haiyuan Wang1,2.
Abstract
To accurately evaluate residual plastic film pollution in pre-sowing cotton fields, a method based on modified U-Net model was proposed in this research. Images of pre-sowing cotton fields were collected using UAV imaging from different heights under different weather conditions. Residual films were manually labelled, and the degree of residual film pollution was defined based on the residual film coverage rate. The modified U-Net model for evaluating residual film pollution was built by simplifying the U-Net model framework and introducing the inception module, and the evaluation results were compared to those of the U-Net, SegNet, and FCN models. The segmentation results showed that the modified U-Net model had the best performance, with a mean intersection over union (MIOU) of 87.53%. The segmentation results on images of cloudy days were better than those on images of sunny days, with accuracy gradually decreasing with increasing image-acquiring height. The evaluation results of residual film pollution showed that the modified U-Net model outperformed the other models. The coefficient of determination(R2), root mean square error (RMSE), mean relative error (MRE) and average evaluation time per image of the modified U-Net model on the CPU were 0.9849, 0.0563, 5.33% and 4.85 s, respectively. The results indicate that UAV imaging combined with the modified U-Net model can accurately evaluate residual film pollution. This study provides technical support for the rapid and accurate evaluation of residual plastic film pollution in pre-sowing cotton fields.Entities:
Keywords: UAV imaging; cotton field; deep learning; pollution; residual film
Year: 2022 PMID: 36160956 PMCID: PMC9505521 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.991191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
Figure 1UAV image acquisition (A) and flight control parameters (B).
Original UAV image data distribution of residual film in cotton field.
| 5 m | 7 m | 9 m | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sunny | 100 | 100 | 100 | 300 |
| Cloudy | 100 | 100 | 100 | 300 |
| Total | 200 | 200 | 200 | 600 |
Figure 2Image labelling: (A) Original image; (B) Labeled image.
Figure 3Network structure: (A) Structure of U-Net; (B) Structure of modified U-Net.
Figure 4Structure of the inception module: (A) Training and validation loss; (B) Training and validation accuracy.
Figure 5Loss and accuracy changes during training: (A) Training and validation loss; (B) Training and validation accuracy.
Segmentation results of different models.
| Model | Accuracy (%) | F1-score (%) | MIOU (%) | Time (ms) | Parameters (106) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SegNet | 99.47 | 71.24 | 77.51 | 251.33 | 31.82 |
| FCN | 99.68 | 82.68 | 85.3 | 204.83 | 26.37 |
| U-Net | 99.69 | 83.76 | 86.14 | 245.17 | 31.06 |
| Modified U-Net | 99.72 | 85.59 | 87.53 | 192.50 | 3.14 |
Figure 6Residual film segmentation results under different weather conditions.
Figure 7MIOU of different models under different weather conditions.
Figure 8Residual film segmentation results of images acquired at different heights.
Figure 9MIOU of different models based on the images acquired at different heights.
Figure 10Regression analysis results of the UAV images-based evaluation and manual evaluation: (A) SegNet; (B) FCN; (C) U-Net; (D) Modified U-Net.
Figure 11Time required by different models for residual film evaluation on the CPU.