Hostname: page-component-669899f699-b58lm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T12:44:37.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Enhancing image recognition robustness in early weed detection through optimal training data curation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2024

Saeko Matsuhashi*
Affiliation:
Senior Scientist, Institute for Plant Protection, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO), Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
Yu Oishi
Affiliation:
Principal Scientist, Research Center for Agricultural Information Technology, NARO, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
Akira Koarai
Affiliation:
Division Manager, Institute for Plant Protection, NARO, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
Ryo Sugiura
Affiliation:
Unit Leader, Research Center for Agricultural Information Technology, NARO, Memuro, Hokkaido, Japan
*
Corresponding author: Saeko Matsuhashi; Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for image recognition is effective for early weed detection. However, the impact of training data curation, specifically concerning morphological changes during the early growth phases of weeds, on recognition robustness remains unclear. We focused on four weed species (giant ragweed [Ambrosia trifida L.], red morningglory [Ipomoea coccinea L.], pitted morningglory [Ipomoea lacunosa L.], and burcucumber [Sicyos angulatus L.]) with varying cotyledon and true leaf shapes. Creating 16 models in total, we employed four dataset patterns with different growth stage combinations, two image recognition algorithms (object detection: You Look Only Once [YOLO] v5 and image classification: Visual Geometry Group [VGG] 19), and two conditions regarding the number of species treated (four and two species). We evaluated the effects of growth stage training on weed recognition success using two datasets. One evaluation revealed superior results with a single class/species training dataset, achieving >90% average precision for detection and classification accuracy under most conditions. The other dataset revealed that merging different growth stages with different shapes as a class effectively prevented misrecognition among different species when using YOLOv5. Both results suggest that integrating different shapes in a plant species as a single class is effective for maintaining robust recognition success amid temporal morphological changes during the early growth stage. This finding not only enhances early detection of weed seedlings but also bolsters the robustness of general plant species identification.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Weed Science Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Muthukumar V. Bagavathiannan, Texas A&M University

References

Barnhart, IH, Lancaster, S, Goodin, D, Spotanski, J, Dille, JA (2022) Use of open-source object detection algorithms to detect Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in soybean. Weed Sci 70:648662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, GRY, Bender, A, Hu, K, Sharpe, SM, Schumann, AW, Wang, Z, Bagavathiannan, MV, Boyd, NS, Walsh, MJ (2022) Weed detection to weed recognition: reviewing 50 years of research to identify constraints and opportunities for large-scale cropping systems. Weed Technol 36:741750 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espejo-Garcia, B, Mylonas, N, Athanasakos, L, Fountas, S, Vasilakoglou, I (2020) Towards weeds identification assistance through transfer learning. Comput Electron Agric 171:105306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gildenblat, J (2021) PyTorch Library for CAM Methods. https://github.com/jacobgil/pytorch-grad-cam. Accessed: January 23, 2024Google Scholar
Grey, TL, Raymler, P (2002) Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control in glyphosate-resistant soybean with narrow rows and postemergence herbicide mixtures 1. Weed Technol 16:669674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, ASMM, Sohel, F, Diepeveen, D, Laga, H, Jones, MGK (2021) A survey of deep learning techniques for weed detection from images. Comput Electron Agric 184:106067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, H, Deng, J, Lan, Y, Yang, A, Deng, X, Zhang, L (2018) A fully convolutional network for weed mapping of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery. PLoS ONE 13: e0196302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussain, MI, Abideen, Z, Danish, S, Asghar, MA, Iqbal, K (2021) Integrated weed management for sustainable agriculture. Sustain Agric Rev 52:367393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jocher, G (2020) YOLOv5 by Ultralytics. https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5. Accessed: January 23, 2024Google Scholar
Kurokawa, S (2017) Alien weeds in agricultural land: problems and solutions. J Weed Sci Technol 62:3647. Japanese Google Scholar
Kurokawa, S, Hajika, M, Shibuya, T (2015) Canopy height-to-row spacing ratio as a simple and practical onsite index to determine the time for terminating Ipomoea coccinea control in the Japanese soybean-growing systems. Weed Biol Manag 15:113121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, SR, Son, DC (2022) Genetic diversity pattern reveals the primary determinant of burcucumber (Sicyos angulatus L.) invasion in Korea. Front Plant Sci 13:116 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, T, Maire, M, Belongie, S, Bourdev, L, Girshick, R, Hays, J, Perona, P, Ramanan, D, Zitnick, CL, Dollár, P (2014) Microsoft COCO: common objects in context. Pages 740–755 in Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Computer Vision, Part V. Zurich, Switzerland: European Conference on Computer Vision.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Granados, F (2011) Weed detection for site-specific weed management: mapping and real-time approaches. Weed Res 51:111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lottes, P, Behley, J, Chebrolu, N, Milioto, A, Stachniss, C (2018) Joint stem detection and crop-weed classification for plant-specific treatment in precision farming. Pages 82338238 in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Madrid, Spain: IEEE CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2015) The List of Alien Species That May Have Adverse Effects on Ecosystems in Japan. https://www.env.go.jp/nature/intro/2outline/iaslist.html. Accessed: January 23, 2024. JapaneseGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Oliveira, MJ (2007) Effect of tillage and soyabean on Ipomoea lacunosa and Senna obtusifolia emergence. Weed Res 47:499508 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partel, V, Charan Kakarla, S, Ampatzidis, Y (2019) Development and evaluation of a low-cost and smart technology for precision weed management utilizing artificial intelligence. Comput Electron Agric 157:339350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rai, N, Zhang, Y, Ram, BG, Schumacher, L, Yellavajjala, RK, Bajwa, S, Sun, X (2023) Applications of deep learning in precision weed management: a review. Comput Electron Agric 206:107698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2023) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org. Accessed: January 23, 2024Google Scholar
Regnier, EE, Harrison, SK, Loux, MM, Holloman, C, Venkatesh, R, Diekmann, F, Taylor, R, Ford, RA, Stoltenberg, DE, Hartzler, RG, Davis, AS, Schutte, BJ, Cardina, J, Mahoney, KJ, Johnson, WG (2016) Certified crop advisors’ perceptions of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) distribution, herbicide resistance, and management in the corn belt. Weed Sci 64:361377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydahl, P (2003) A web-based decision support system for integrated management of weeds in cereals and sugarbeet. EPPO Bull 33:455460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savić, A, Oveisi, M, Božić, D, Pavlović, D, Saulić, M, Schärer, HM, Vrbničanin, S (2021) Competition between Ambrosia artemisiifolia and Ambrosia trifida: is there a threat of a stronger competitor? Weed Res 61:298306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selvaraju, RR, Cogswell, M, Das, A, Vedantam, R, Parikh, D, Batra, D (2020) Grad-CAM: visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. Int J Comput Vis 128:336359 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smeda, RJ, Weller, SC (2001) Biology and control of burcucumber. Weed Sci 49:99105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sujaritha, M, Annadurai, S, Satheeshkumar, J, Kowshik Sharan, S, Mahesh, L (2017) Weed detecting robot in sugarcane fields using fuzzy real time classifier. Comput Electron Agric 134:160171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teimouri, N, Dyrmann, M, Nielsen, PR, Mathiassen, SK, Somerville, GJ, Jørgensen, RN (2018) Weed growth stage estimator using deep convolutional neural networks. Sensors 18:113 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tzutalin (2015) LabelImg. https://github.com/HumanSignal/labelImg. Accessed: January 23, 2024Google Scholar
Wang, A, Zhang, W, Wei, X (2019) A review on weed detection using ground-based machine vision and image processing techniques. Comput Electron Agric 158:226240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Matsuhashi et al. supplementary material 1

Matsuhashi et al. supplementary material
Download Matsuhashi et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 9.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Matsuhashi et al. supplementary material 2

Matsuhashi et al. supplementary material
Download Matsuhashi et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 112.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Matsuhashi et al. supplementary material 3

Matsuhashi et al. supplementary material
Download Matsuhashi et al. supplementary material 3(File)
File 235.8 KB