| Literature DB >> 36160977 |
Saleh Albahli1, Marriam Nawaz2,3.
Abstract
Early recognition of tomato plant leaf diseases is mandatory to improve the food yield and save agriculturalists from costly spray procedures. The correct and timely identification of several tomato plant leaf diseases is a complicated task as the healthy and affected areas of plant leaves are highly similar. Moreover, the incidence of light variation, color, and brightness changes, and the occurrence of blurring and noise on the images further increase the complexity of the detection process. In this article, we have presented a robust approach for tackling the existing issues of tomato plant leaf disease detection and classification by using deep learning. We have proposed a novel approach, namely the DenseNet-77-based CornerNet model, for the localization and classification of the tomato plant leaf abnormalities. Specifically, we have used the DenseNet-77 as the backbone network of the CornerNet. This assists in the computing of the more nominative set of image features from the suspected samples that are later categorized into 10 classes by the one-stage detector of the CornerNet model. We have evaluated the proposed solution on a standard dataset, named PlantVillage, which is challenging in nature as it contains samples with immense brightness alterations, color variations, and leaf images with different dimensions and shapes. We have attained an average accuracy of 99.98% over the employed dataset. We have conducted several experiments to assure the effectiveness of our approach for the timely recognition of the tomato plant leaf diseases that can assist the agriculturalist to replace the manual systems.Entities:
Keywords: CornerNet; DenseNet; classification; localization; tomato plant diseases
Year: 2022 PMID: 36160977 PMCID: PMC9499263 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.957961
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
An analysis of existing methods.
| Reference | Method | Accuracy (%) | Limitation |
|
| |||
|
| K-FLBPCM + SVM | 98.63 | The technique lacks the ability to classify distorted plant images. |
|
| DLQP + SVM | 97.80 | This approach is not efficient for noisy images. |
|
| GLCM + SVM | 98.50 | The technique entails high computational costs. |
|
| LBP + SVM | 95 | This approach is not efficient for noisy images. |
|
| HOGs + RF | 70.14 | The work requires classification result improvements. |
|
| GLCM + SVM | 91 | The technique lacks the ability to tackle the intensity and color variations found in the plant images. |
|
| SIFT, LBP, GLCM + SVM, KNN, and RF | 82.12 | The results need further improvements. |
|
| Color spaces + SVM | 94.65. | The approach is not robust for unseen data. |
|
| |||
|
| InceptionV3 + SVM | 91.40 | The technique needs further assessment over a more complex database. |
|
| CNN | 91.20 | The framework is facing the network over-fitting problem. |
|
| ResNet50 | 99 | The approach requires high processing power. |
|
| AlexNet + KNN | 76.10 | The approach takes a long time to process samples. |
|
| CNN | 98 | The work needs huge samples to train the network. |
|
| RCNN | 99.93 | The approach does not perform well for unseen examples. |
|
| VGG, ResNet, and DenseNet | 98.27 | The approach requires high processing power. |
|
| CenterNet | 99.90 | The framework needs to be evaluated on real-world examples. |
|
| EfficientNetV2 | 99.93 | Performance degrades for distorted samples. |
|
| VGG16 | 98.40 | The classification accuracy requires improvements. |
Description of steps followed by the proposed work.
FIGURE 1Pictorial depiction of the DenseNet-77-based CornerNet model for the tomato plant leaf diseases classification.
FIGURE 2Example of annotated images of the tomato plant from the PlantVillage dataset.
FIGURE 3The pictorial representation of (A) dense block and (B) transition block.
Description of the DenseNet-77.
| Layer | DenseNet-77 | |
| Size | Stride | |
| CnL 1 | 7×7 | 2 |
| PoolL1 | 3×3max_pooling | 2 |
| Db 1 |
| 1 |
| TnL | ||
| CnL2 | 1×1 | 1 |
| PoolL2 | 2×2 | 2 |
| Db 2 |
| 1 |
| TnL | ||
| CnL3 | 1×1 | 1 |
| PoolL3 | 2×2ApL | 2 |
| Db3 |
| 1 |
| TnL | ||
| CnL4 | 1×1 | 1 |
| PoolL4 | 2×2 | 2 |
| Db4 |
| 1 |
| Classification_layer | 7×7 | |
| FCL | ||
| SoftMax | ||
FIGURE 4Details of the tomato plant samples from the PlantVillage dataset.
FIGURE 5An example of tomato plant leaves samples from the PlantVillage dataset.
FIGURE 6Visual demonstration of (A) IOU, (B) precision, and (C) recall.
FIGURE 7A pictorial depiction of the localized tomato plant leaf diseases samples.
FIGURE 8A pictorial depiction of the class-wise precision values obtained for the DenseNet-77-based CornerNet model.
FIGURE 9A pictorial depiction of the class-wise recall values obtained for the DenseNet-77-based CornerNet model.
FIGURE 10A pictorial depiction of the class-wise F1-score values obtained for the DenseNet-77-based CornerNet model.
FIGURE 11A pictorial depiction of the class-wise accuracy values obtained for the DenseNet-77-based CornerNet model.
FIGURE 12Confusion matrix results for tomato plant leaf diseases classification obtained using the DenseNet-77-based CornerNet model.
Comparison with other DL frameworks.
| Model | Precision | Recall | F1-score | Accuracy (%) | Time (second) |
| GoogleNet | 0.8716 | 0.8709 | 0.8712 | 87.27 | 0.65 |
| ResNet-101 | 0.8995 | 0.9013 | 0.9004 | 90.13 | 1.21 |
| Xception | 0.8825 | 0.8814 | 0.8819 | 88.16 | 0.77 |
| VGG-19 | 0.9039 | 0.9047 | 0.9243 | 90.42 | 1.56 |
| SE-ResNet50 | 0.9677 | 0.9681 | 0.9679 | 96.81 | 0.57 |
| Proposed | 0.9962 | 0.9953 | 0.9957 | 99.98 | 0.22 |
Comparison with other object detection methods.
| Models | mAP | Test time |
| Fast-RCNN | 0.860 | 0.28 |
| Faster-RCNN | 0.884 | 0.28 |
| YOLOv3 | 0.842 | 0.26 |
| SSD | 0.830 | 0.27 |
| Hourglass-based-CornerNet | 0.883 | 0.25 |
| Proposed DenseNet-77-based CornerNet | 0.984 | 0.22 |
Comparison with the latest studies.
| Approach | Precision | Recall | Accuracy (%) |
|
| 0.90 | 0.92 | 91.20 |
|
| 0.9481 | 0.9478 | 94 |
|
| 0.9880 | 0.9880 | 98.80 |
| Proposed | 0.9962 | 0.9953 | 99.97 |