480 likes | 615 Views
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.
E N D
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
Overview • Spectral measurements of crops and weeds • in laboratory • in field • Processing of spectral data with neural networks • Precise spraying
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
Spectral weed detection Factors affecting spectral plant signals • leaf reflection, dependent on species and environment, stress, disease • canopy & measurement geometry • light conditions • detector sensitivity
Laboratory measurements integrating sphere sample computer spectrophotometer Spectral analysis of plant leavesin laboratory Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy of Crop and Weed Leaves
Laboratory measurements Diffuse Reflectance of a Leaf
Laboratory measurements Spectral Dataset
Laboratory measurements Reflectance of crop and weed leaves
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
Laboratory measurements Spectral response of beet & weeds
Laboratory measurements Spectral response of maize & weeds
Laboratory measurements Spectral response of potato & weeds
Laboratory measurements Classification results
Field measurements Field measurement of crop and weeds Signal path Processingmethod Variation inlight condition Detector sensitivity Measurement geometry
Field measurements Equipment for field measurement spectrograph + 10-bit CCD, digital camera, computer, 12 V battery and transformer on mobile platform
Field measurements Equipment - Spectrograph both spatial and spectral information in images
Field measurements spectral axis spatial axis Image data • maize, sugarbeet, 11 weeds • 2 different days, different light conditions • 755 x 484 pixels
Field measurements Spectral response of sensor
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
Field measurements Spectral datasets
Field measurements Mean canopy reflections
Field measurements Canonical analysis of Sugarbeet - weeds
Field measurements Canonical analysis of Maize - weeds
Field measurements Discriminant analysis Sugarbeet
Field measurements Discriminant analysis Maize
Field measurements Graphic comparison datasets
Field measurements Graphic comparison datasets
Field measurements Graphic comparison datasets
Field measurements Discriminant analysis ratiosSugarbeet
Field measurements Discriminant analysis ratiosMaize
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Precision treatment Precision spraying through controlled dose application Unwanted variations in dose caused by horizontal and vertical boom movements
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
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
Precision treatment On-line selective weed treatment Indoor test of on-line weed detection and treatment
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
Precision treatment Indoor test of on-line weed detection and treatment Color image and spectral image
Precision treatment Indoor test - Results • Comparison of nozzle activation with weed positions
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