ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Performances of the LBP Based Algorithm over CNN Models for Detecting Crops and Weeds with Similar Morphologies.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plant growth point localization via epoch-based prior annealing.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Weed Classification from Natural Corn Field-Multi-Plant Images Based on Shallow and Deep Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A hybrid CNN-SVM classifier for weed recognition in winter rape field.Plant methods · 2022Article
- Evaluating Cross-Applicability of Weed Detection Models Across Different Crops in Similar Production Environments.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Cotton stubble detection based on wavelet decomposition and texture features.Plant methods · 2021Article
- Machine Learning in Agriculture: A Comprehensive Updated Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Weed invasions pose a threat to agricultural productivity. Weed recognition and detection play an important role in controlling weeds. The challenging problem of weed detection is how to discriminate between crops and weeds with a similar morphology under natural field conditions such as occlusion, varying lighting conditions, and different growth stages. In this paper, we evaluate a novel algorithm, filtered Local Binary Patterns with contour masks and coefficient k (k-FLBPCM), for discriminating between morphologically similar crops and weeds, which shows significant advantages, in both model size and accuracy, over state-of-the-art deep convolutional neural network (CNN) models such as VGG-16, VGG-19, ResNet-50 and InceptionV3. The experimental results on the "bccr-segset" dataset in the laboratory testbed setting show that the accuracy of CNN models with fine-tuned hyper-parameters is slightly higher than the k-FLBPCM method, while the accuracy of the k-FLBPCM algorithm is higher than the CNN models (except for VGG-16) for the more realistic "fieldtrip_can_weeds" dataset collected from real-world agricultural fields. However, the CNN models require a large amount of labelled samples for the training process. We conducted another experiment based on training with crop images at mature stages and testing at early stages. The k-FLBPCM method outperformed the state-of-the-art CNN models in recognizing small leaf shapes at early growth stages, with error rates an order of magnitude lower than CNN models for canola-radish (crop-weed) discrimination using a subset extracted from the "bccr-segset" dataset, and for the "mixed-plants" dataset. Moreover, the real-time weed-plant discrimination time attained with the k-FLBPCM algorithm is approximately 0.223 ms per image for the laboratory dataset and 0.346 ms per image for the field dataset, and this is an order of magnitude faster than that of CNN models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.