| Literature DB >> 36186015 |
Yangyang Liu1, Pengyang Zhang1, Yu Ru2, Delin Wu1, Shunli Wang1, Niuniu Yin1, Fansheng Meng3, Zhongcheng Liu1.
Abstract
The complex environments and weak infrastructure constructions of hilly mountainous areas complicate the effective path planning for plant protection operations. Therefore, with the aim of improving the current status of complicated tea plant protections in hills and slopes, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) multi-tea field plant protection route planning algorithm is developed in this paper and integrated with a full-coverage spraying route method for a single region. By optimizing the crossover and mutation operators of the genetic algorithm (GA), the crossover and mutation probabilities are automatically adjusted with the individual fitness and a dynamic genetic algorithm (DGA) is proposed. The iteration period and reinforcement concepts are then introduced in the pheromone update rule of the ant colony optimization (ACO) to improve the convergence accuracy and global optimization capability, and an ant colony binary iteration optimization (ACBIO) is proposed. Serial fusion is subsequently employed on the two algorithms to optimize the route planning for multi-regional operations. Simulation tests reveal that the dynamic genetic algorithm with ant colony binary iterative optimization (DGA-ACBIO) proposed in this study shortens the optimal flight range by 715.8 m, 428.3 m, 589 m, and 287.6 m compared to the dynamic genetic algorithm, ant colony binary iterative algorithm, artificial fish swarm algorithm (AFSA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO), respectively, for multiple tea field scheduling route planning. Moreover, the search time is reduced by more than half compared to other bionic algorithms. The proposed algorithm maintains advantages in performance and stability when solving standard traveling salesman problems with more complex objectives, as well as the planning accuracy and search speed. In this paper, the research on the planning algorithm of plant protection route for multi-tea field scheduling helps to shorten the inter-regional scheduling range and thus reduces the cost of plant protection.Entities:
Keywords: bionic algorithm; hilly mountainous area; multi-tea field plant protection; scheduling route planning; unmanned aerial vehicle
Year: 2022 PMID: 36186015 PMCID: PMC9523449 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.998962
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
FIGURE 1Projection coordinates of a single tea field.
FIGURE 2Multi-tea field model.
FIGURE 3A diagram of the spraying area and the spraying route in the border area of the single tea field. (A) Spray area; (B) the route to the border of the tea field.
FIGURE 4acquisition of vertices in tea field.
FIGURE 5Search speeds of the dynamic genetic algorithm (DGA) and ant colony binary iterative algorithm (ACBIO).
FIGURE 6Search flow chart of DGA-ACBIO.
Parameters for each algorithm.
| Algorithms | Parameters |
| GA | Population size |
| ACO | ant colony number m = 100, information heuristic factor α = 1, expected heuristic factor β = 5, maximum number of iterations genmax = 200 |
| DGA | Population size |
| ACBIO | ant colony number m = 100, information heuristic factor α = 1, expected heuristic factor β = 5, maximum number of iterations genmax=200 |
| AFSA | Number of artificial fish fishnum = 100, maximum number of iterations genmax = 200, maximum number of probes trynumber = 200, sensing ranges Visual = 16, crowding factor deta = 0.8. |
| PSO | Evolution time nMax = 200, number of individuals indiNumber = 100, particle size parsize = 100 |
| DGA-ACBIO | Population size |
Significance of differences in algorithm results.
| Comparison of algorithms | |
| DGA-ACBIO vs. DGA | 1.186E-9 |
| DGA-ACBIO vs. ACBIO | 0.001540 |
| DGA-ACBIO vs. AFSA | 6.9579E-7 |
| DGA-ACBIO vs. PSO | 1.267E-7 |
Comparison of algorithm performances and optimal routes.
| Algorithm | Optimal route (m) | Iteration results (times) | Running time (s) |
| DGA |
|
| 4.66 |
| ACBIO |
|
| 6.23 |
| AFSA |
|
| 5.25 |
| PSO |
|
| 5.23 |
| DGA-ACBIO |
|
| 2.56 |
Simulation results for different traveling salesman problems.
| Problem | Algorithm | Best value (m) | Worst value (m) | Average value (m) | Range (m) | CV |
| Multi-tea field 20 | DGA | 5847.4 | 6571.2 | 6230.3 | 723.8 | 0.037 |
| ACBIO | 5559.9 | 6007.9 | 5724.0 | 448.03 | 0.017 | |
| AFSA | 5720.6 | 6198.9 | 5904.3 | 478.3 | 0.025 | |
| PSO | 5419.2 | 5900.5 | 5566.2 | 481.3 | 0.030 | |
| DGA-ACBIO | 5131.6 | 5195.7 | 5153.4 | 64.1 | 0.005 | |
| berlin52 | DGA | 9450.0 | 11528.4 | 10343.8 | 2078.4 | 0.058 |
| ACBIO | 8611.1 | 9326.3 | 8934.8 | 715.2 | 0.025 | |
| AFSA | 9245.3 | 10172.5 | 9832.5 | 927.2 | 0.026 | |
| PSO | 8819.5 | 9515.7 | 9111.9 | 696.2 | 0.022 | |
| DGA-ACBIO | 7544.4 | 7703.8 | 7603.2 | 159.4 | 0.007 | |
| kroA100 | DGA | 41475.1 | 58243.7 | 50356.0 | 16768.6 | 0.091 |
| ACBIO | 33418.4 | 40526.3 | 36375.4 | 7107.9 | 0.060 | |
| AFSA | 58148.7 | 64499.5 | 61217.5 | 6350.8 | 0.028 | |
| PSO | 58127.0 | 64854.3 | 60823.0 | 6726.7 | 0.035 | |
| DGA-ACBIO | 21511.3 | 22198.7 | 21835.2 | 687.4 | 0.009 |
Simulation results of each algorithm and iterative performance curve of DGA-ACBIO.
| Multi-tea field20 | Results of each algorithm after performing different problems 20 times | Iteration curve of DGA-ACBIO algorithm after performing different problems 20 times |
|
|
| |
| Berlin52 |
|
|
| kroA100 |
|
|
FIGURE 7Iterative convergence curves of DGA and GA (A) iterative convergence curves of DGA and GA; (B) iterative convergence curves of ACBIO and ACO.