IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i3p222-d512867.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Plant and Weed Identifier Robot as an Agroecological Tool Using Artificial Neural Networks for Image Identification

Author

Listed:
  • Tavseef Mairaj Shah

    (Rural Revival and Restoration Egineering (RUVIVAL), Institute of Wastewater Management and Water Protection, Hamburg University of Technology, Eissendorfer Strasse 42, 21073 Hamburg, Germany
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Durga Prasad Babu Nasika

    (Rural Revival and Restoration Egineering (RUVIVAL), Institute of Wastewater Management and Water Protection, Hamburg University of Technology, Eissendorfer Strasse 42, 21073 Hamburg, Germany
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Ralf Otterpohl

    (Rural Revival and Restoration Egineering (RUVIVAL), Institute of Wastewater Management and Water Protection, Hamburg University of Technology, Eissendorfer Strasse 42, 21073 Hamburg, Germany)

Abstract

Farming systems form the backbone of the world food system. The food system, in turn, is a critical component in sustainable development, with direct linkages to the social, economic, and ecological systems. Weeds are one of the major factors responsible for the crop yield gap in the different regions of the world. In this work, a plant and weed identifier tool was conceptualized, developed, and trained based on artificial deep neural networks to be used for the purpose of weeding the inter-row space in crop fields. A high-level design of the weeding robot is conceptualized and proposed as a solution to the problem of weed infestation in farming systems. The implementation process includes data collection, data pre-processing, training and optimizing a neural network model. A selective pre-trained neural network model was considered for implementing the task of plant and weed identification. The faster R-CNN (Region based Convolution Neural Network) method achieved an overall mean Average Precision (mAP) of around 31% while considering the learning rate hyperparameter of 0.0002. In the plant and weed prediction tests, prediction values in the range of 88–98% were observed in comparison to the ground truth. While as on a completely unknown dataset of plants and weeds, predictions were observed in the range of 67–95% for plants, and 84% to 99% in the case of weeds. In addition to that, a simple yet unique stem estimation technique for the identified weeds based on bounding box localization of the object inside the image frame is proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Tavseef Mairaj Shah & Durga Prasad Babu Nasika & Ralf Otterpohl, 2021. "Plant and Weed Identifier Robot as an Agroecological Tool Using Artificial Neural Networks for Image Identification," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-31, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:222-:d:512867
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/3/222/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/3/222/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krupnik, Timothy J. & Rodenburg, Jonne & Haden, Van Ryan & Mbaye, Doudou & Shennan, Carol, 2012. "Genotypic trade-offs between water productivity and weed competition under the System of Rice Intensification in the Sahel," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 156-166.
    2. Graeub, Benjamin E. & Chappell, M. Jahi & Wittman, Hannah & Ledermann, Samuel & Kerr, Rachel Bezner & Gemmill-Herren, Barbara, 2016. "The State of Family Farms in the World," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-15.
    3. Schnitkey, Gary, 2018. "Historic Fertilizer, Seed, and Chemical Costs with 2019 Projections," farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 8, June.
    4. Orlando, Francesca & Alali, Sumer & Vaglia, Valentina & Pagliarino, Elena & Bacenetti, Jacopo & Bocchi, Stefano & Bocchi, Stefano, 2020. "Participatory approach for developing knowledge on organic rice farming: Management strategies and productive performance," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    5. Poornima Varma, 2018. "Adoption of System of Rice Intensification under Information Constraints: An Analysis for India," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(10), pages 1838-1857, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gustavo José Querino Vasconcelos & Gabriel Schubert Ruiz Costa & Thiago Vallin Spina & Helio Pedrini, 2023. "Low-Cost Robot for Agricultural Image Data Acquisition," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Sebastian Kujawa & Gniewko Niedbała, 2021. "Artificial Neural Networks in Agriculture," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-6, May.
    3. Atefeh Sabouri & Adel Bakhshipour & MohammadHossein Poornoori & Abouzar Abouzari, 2022. "Application of image processing and soft computing strategies for non-destructive estimation of plum leaf area," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(7), pages 1-25, July.
    4. Zhongyang Ma & Gang Wang & Jurong Yao & Dongyan Huang & Hewen Tan & Honglei Jia & Zhaobo Zou, 2023. "An Improved U-Net Model Based on Multi-Scale Input and Attention Mechanism: Application for Recognition of Chinese Cabbage and Weed," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luis Bauluz & Yajna Govind & Filip Novokmet, 2020. "Global Land Inequality," PSE Working Papers halshs-03022318, HAL.
    2. Zegar Józef Stanisław, 2023. "Transformation of Family Farming in the Second Decade of the 21st Century," Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej / Problems of Agricultural Economics, Sciendo, vol. 374(1), pages 1-19.
    3. Reynolds, Travis W. & Anderson, C. Leigh & Slakie, Elysia & Gugerty, Mary Kay, 2015. "How Common Crop Yield Measures Misrepresent Productivity among Smallholder Farmers," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212485, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Tina D. Beuchelt & Rafaël Schneider & Liliana Gamba, 2022. "Integrating the right to food in sustainability standards: A theory of change to move global supply chains from responsibilities to impacts," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 1864-1889, December.
    5. Martey, Edward & Etwire, Prince M. & Adombilla, Ramson & Abebrese, Samuel O., 2023. "Information constraint and farmers’ willingness to pay for an irrigation scheduling tool," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    6. Ager, Philipp & Goñi, Marc & Salvanes, Kjell Gunnar, 2023. "Gender-biased technological change: Milking machines and the exodus of women from farming," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 16/2023, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    7. Boza, S. & Mora, M. & Osorio, F. & Munoz, J., 2018. "Family farmer attitudes toward incorporating into the formal economy," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276960, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Monica Patricia Camas-Nafate & Peggy Alvarez-Gutiérrez & Edgar Valenzuela-Mondaca & Roger Castillo-Palomera & Yolanda del Carmen Perez-Luna, 2019. "Improved Agricultural Products Drying Through a Novel Double Collector Solar Device," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-13, May.
    9. Emily Mutea & Stephan Rist & Johanna Jacobi, 2020. "Applying the Theory of Access to Food Security among Smallholder Family Farmers around North-West Mount Kenya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, February.
    10. Luxon Nhamo & James Magidi & Adolph Nyamugama & Alistair D. Clulow & Mbulisi Sibanda & Vimbayi G. P. Chimonyo & Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi, 2020. "Prospects of Improving Agricultural and Water Productivity through Unmanned Aerial Vehicles," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    11. Lu, Wencong & Horlu, Godwin Seyram Agbemavor Kwasi, 2019. "Transition of small farms in Ghana: perspectives of farm heritage, employment and networks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 434-452.
    12. Adam Salifu & Godwin Seyram Agbemavor Horlu, 2022. "Nonfarm employment and mobility of farmers into different income groups: evidence from rural Ghana," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-25, January.
    13. P. P. Braga, Daniel & Pokorny, Benno & Porro, Roberto & Vidal, Edson, 2023. "Good life in the Amazon? A critical reflection on the standard of living of cocoa and cattle-based smallholders in Pará, Brazil," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    14. Galaz, Victor & Centeno, Miguel A. & Callahan, Peter W. & Causevic, Amar & Patterson, Thayer & Brass, Irina & Baum, Seth & Farber, Darryl & Fischer, Joern & Garcia, David & McPhearson, Timon & Jimenez, 2021. "Artificial intelligence, systemic risks, and sustainability," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    15. Lele, Uma, 2022. "Productivity by Farm Size and Food Security," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 323943, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Nan Chen & Xinglong Yang & Nicola Shadbolt, 2020. "The Balanced Scorecard as a Tool Evaluating the Sustainable Performance of Chinese Emerging Family Farms—Evidence from Jilin Province in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-27, August.
    17. West, Thales A.P. & Monge, Juan J. & Dowling, Les J. & Wakelin, Steve J. & Gibbs, Holly K., 2020. "Promotion of afforestation in New Zealand’s marginal agricultural lands through payments for environmental services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    18. Yinsheng Yang & Qianwei Zhuang & Guangdong Tian & Silin Wei, 2018. "A Management and Environmental Performance Evaluation of China’s Family Farms Using an Ultimate Comprehensive Cross-Efficiency Model (UCCE)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, December.
    19. Guiomar, N. & Godinho, S. & Pinto-Correia, T. & Almeida, M. & Bartolini, F. & Bezák, P. & Biró, M. & Bjørkhaug, H. & Bojnec, Š. & Brunori, G. & Corazzin, M. & Czekaj, M. & Davidova, S. & Kania, J. & K, 2018. "Typology and distribution of small farms in Europe: Towards a better picture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 784-798.
    20. Martin Javornicky & Áine Macken-Walsh & Anita Naughton, 2021. "Emerging Beef Producer Organisations (POs) in the Irish Beef Sector: An Analysis of Media Coverage in the Context of Nationwide Beef Producer Protests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:222-:d:512867. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.