1 / 46

Spectral Weed Detection and Precise Spraying

Katholieke Universiteit. LEUVEN. Spectral Weed Detection and Precise Spraying. Laboratory of AgroMachinery and Processing Els Vrindts, Dimitrios Moshou, Jan Reumers Herman Ramon, Josse De Baerdemaeker. Research sponsored by IWT and the Belgian Ministry of Small Trade and Agriculture.

karik
Télécharger la présentation

Spectral Weed Detection and Precise Spraying

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Katholieke Universiteit LEUVEN Spectral Weed Detectionand Precise Spraying Laboratory of AgroMachinery and Processing Els Vrindts, Dimitrios Moshou, Jan ReumersHerman Ramon, Josse De Baerdemaeker Research sponsored by IWT and the Belgian Ministry of Small Trade and Agriculture

  2. Overview • Spectral measurements of crops and weeds • in laboratory • in field • Processing of spectral data with neural networks • Precise spraying

  3. Optical detection of weeds Techniques • red/NIR detectors (vegetation index) • image processing (color, texture, shape) • remote sensing of weed patches • reflection in visible & NIR light different detection possibilities, different scales Requirements for on-line weed detection: • fast & accurate weed detection • synchronized with treatment

  4. Spectral weed detection Factors affecting spectral plant signals • leaf reflection, dependent on species and environment, stress, disease • canopy & measurement geometry • light conditions • detector sensitivity

  5. Laboratory measurements integrating sphere sample computer spectrophotometer Spectral analysis of plant leavesin laboratory Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy of Crop and Weed Leaves

  6. Laboratory measurements Diffuse Reflectance of a Leaf

  7. Laboratory measurements Spectral Dataset

  8. Laboratory measurements Reflectance of crop and weed leaves

  9. Laboratory measurements Spectral analysis • stepwise selection of discriminant wavelengths • multivariate discriminant analysis, based on reflectance response at selected wavelengths (dataset a) • assuming multivariate normal distribution • quadratic discriminant rule classes with different covariance structure • testing the discriminant function: classification of spectra from dataset b

  10. Laboratory measurements Spectral response of beet & weeds

  11. Laboratory measurements Spectral response of maize & weeds

  12. Laboratory measurements Spectral response of potato & weeds

  13. Laboratory measurements Classification results

  14. Field measurements Field measurement of crop and weeds Signal path Processingmethod Variation inlight condition Detector sensitivity Measurement geometry

  15. Field measurements Equipment for field measurement spectrograph + 10-bit CCD, digital camera, computer, 12 V battery and transformer on mobile platform

  16. Field measurements Equipment - Spectrograph both spatial and spectral information in images

  17. Field measurements spectral axis spatial axis Image data • maize, sugarbeet, 11 weeds • 2 different days, different light conditions • 755 x 484 pixels

  18. Field measurements Spectral response of sensor

  19. Field measurements Data processing • spectral resolution: 0.71 nm /pixel • plant/soil discrimination with ratio: NIR (745 nm) / red (682 nm) • data reduction by calculating average per 2.1 nm, removing noisy ends • resulting spectra: 484.8 - 814.6 nm range, 2.1 nm step • independent datasets of maize, sugarbeet and weeds

  20. Field measurements Spectral datasets

  21. Field measurements Mean canopy reflections

  22. Field measurements Canonical analysis of Sugarbeet - weeds

  23. Field measurements Canonical analysis of Maize - weeds

  24. Field measurements Discriminant analysis Sugarbeet

  25. Field measurements Discriminant analysis Maize

  26. Field measurements Graphic comparison datasets

  27. Field measurements Graphic comparison datasets

  28. Field measurements Graphic comparison datasets

  29. Field measurements Discriminant analysis ratiosSugarbeet

  30. Field measurements Discriminant analysis ratiosMaize

  31. Field measurements Results • only spectral info (485-815 nm) • classification based on narrow bands in discriminant functions • good results in similar light and crop conditions • large decrease in performance for other light conditions • using ratios of narrow bands • improvement, but not sufficient

  32. Field measurements Improving results • influence of light conditions • adaption of classification rule • determining light condition and applying appropriate calibration/LUT • spectral inputs that are less affected by environment • measuring irradiance, calculating reflectance • other classification methods

  33. Crop-weed classification Neural network for classification • Comparison of different NN techniques for classification • Self-Organizing Map (SOM) neural network for classification • used in a supervised way for classification • neurons of the SOM are associated with local models • achieves fast convergence and good generalisation.

  34. Crop-weed classification x x x x class Neural lattice (A) Input Layer 1 2 n -1 n Distribution weights Layer second hidden layer …. Pattern Layer first hidden Input Space (V) …. layer O Summation Layer O 1 f ( x ) f ( x ) n 1 2 s1(k) s2(k) s3(k) s4(k) Decision Layer Output Layer Neural network for classification SOM MLP PNN • ADVANTAGES • Learns with reduced • amounts of data • Fast Learning • Visualisation • Retrainable • DISADVANTAGES • Discrete output • ADVANTAGES • Good extrapolation • DISADVANTAGES • Slow Learning • Local minima • Needs a lot of data • ADVANTAGES • Fast Learning • Retrainable • DISADVANTAGES • Needs all training data • during operation • Needs a lot of data

  35. Crop-weed classification Comparison between methods MLP: Multi-Layer Perceptron, PNN: Probabilistic N Network, SOM: Self-Organizing Map, LVQ: Learning Vector Qantization, LLM: Local Linear Mapping Moshou et al., 1998, AgEng98, Oslo Moshou et al., 2001, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 31 (1): 5-16

  36. Crop-weed classification Comparison between methods MLP: Multi-Layer Perceptron, PNN: Probabilistic N Network, SOM: Self-Organizing Map, LVQ: Learning Vector Qantization, LLM: Local Linear Mapping

  37. Crop-weed classification Comparison between methods MLP: Multi-Layer Perceptron, PNN: Probabilistic N Network, SOM: Self-Organizing Map, LVQ: Learning Vector Qantization, LLM: Local Linear Mapping

  38. Crop-weed classification Conclusions on LLM SOM technique • The strongest point is the local representation of the data accompanied by a local updating algorithm • Local updating algorithms assure much faster convergence than global updating algorithms (e.g. backpropagation for MLPs) • Because of the topologically preserving character of the SOM, the proposed classification method can deal with missing or noisy data, outperforming “optimal” classifiers (PNN) • The proposed method has been tested and gave superior results compared to a variety statistical and neural classifiers

  39. Precision treatment Precision spraying through controlled dose application Unwanted variations in dose caused by horizontal and vertical boom movements

  40. Validation with ISO 5008 track movement of spray boom tip with and without controller Precision treatment 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Distance (m) 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (s) Active horizontal stabilisation of spray boom

  41. Precision treatment reduction fixing between plates electric motor g frame connected to tractor rol q boom cable ultrasonic sensors Vertical stabilisation of spray boom Slow-active system for slopes Resulting boom movement

  42. Precision treatment On-line selective weed treatment Indoor test of on-line weed detection and treatment

  43. Precision treatment Indoor test of on-line weed detection and treatment • Sensor: Spectral line camera • Classification: Probabilistic neural network • Program in Labview with c-code • Image acquisition frequence: 10 images/sec, travel speed: 30cm/sec, segmentation with NDVI ( > 0.3) • Off-line training of NN, On-line classification • Decision to spray: > 20 weed pixels and > 35% of vegetation is weed • Spray boom with PWM nozzles and controller, provided by Teejet Technologies

  44. Precision treatment Indoor test of on-line weed detection and treatment Color image and spectral image

  45. Precision treatment Indoor test - Results • Comparison of nozzle activation with weed positions

  46. Precision treatment Indoor test - Results • separate weed classes (4) did not improve crop-weed classification • Correct detectionof nearly all weeds • Only 6 % redundant spraying of crop • Up to 70 % reduction of herbicide use Experimental set up camera nozzle weed

More Related