4.6 Article

Wheat ear counting using K-means clustering segmentation and convolutional neural network

期刊

PLANT METHODS
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13007-020-00648-8

关键词

Wheat ear counting; Crop yield; Deep learning; CNN; K-means; Segmentation; Recognitions

资金

  1. 13th Five-year National Key Research and Development Plan of China [2016YFD0300609]
  2. Outstanding Science and Technology Innovation Talents Program of Henan province [184200510008]
  3. Modern Agricultural Technology System Project of Henan Province [S201001-G04]
  4. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFD0301105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Wheat yield is influenced by the number of ears per unit area, and manual counting has traditionally been used to estimate wheat yield. To realize rapid and accurate wheat ear counting, K-means clustering was used for the automatic segmentation of wheat ear images captured by hand-held devices. The segmented data set was constructed by creating four categories of image labels: non-wheat ear, one wheat ear, two wheat ears, and three wheat ears, which was then was sent into the convolution neural network (CNN) model for training and testing to reduce the complexity of the model. Results The recognition accuracy of non-wheat, one wheat, two wheat ears, and three wheat ears were 99.8, 97.5, 98.07, and 98.5%, respectively. The modelR(2)reached 0.96, the root mean square error (RMSE) was 10.84 ears, the macro F1-score and micro F1-score both achieved 98.47%, and the best performance was observed during late grain-filling stage (R-2 = 0.99, RMSE = 3.24 ears). The model could also be applied to the UAV platform (R-2 = 0.97, RMSE = 9.47 ears). Conclusions The classification of segmented images as opposed to target recognition not only reduces the workload of manual annotation but also improves significantly the efficiency and accuracy of wheat ear counting, thus meeting the requirements of wheat yield estimation in the field environment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据