2023 journal article
Evaluation of Computer Vision Systems and Applications to Estimate Trunk Cross-Sectional Area, Flower Cluster Number, Thinning Efficacy and Yield of Apple
HORTICULTURAE, 9(8).
author keywords: computer vision system; trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA); bloom intensity; fruit growth rate model; yield estimation
TL;DR:
The results concluded that the Pometa system using a smartphone offered advantages such as low cost, quick access, simple operation, and accurate precision more than the Orchard Robotics vision system with an advanced camera system.
(via Semantic Scholar)
open access via www.mdpi.com (publisher PDF)
UN Sustainable Development Goal Categories
2. Zero Hunger
(Web of Science)
Source: Web Of Science
Added: September 11, 2023
Precision crop load management of apple requires counting fruiting structures at various times during the year to guide management decisions. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the accuracy of and compare different commercial computer vision systems and computer applications to estimate trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), flower cluster number, thinning efficacy, and yield estimation. These studies evaluated two companies that offer different vision systems in a series of trials across 23 orchards in four states. Orchard Robotics uses a proprietary camera system, and Pometa (previously Farm Vision) uses a cell phone camera system. The cultivars used in the trials were ‘NY1’, ‘NY2’, ‘Empire’, ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Gala’, ‘Fuji’, and ‘Honeycrisp’. TCSA and flowering were evaluated with the Orchard Robotics camera in full rows. Flowering, fruit set, and yield estimation were evaluated with Pometa. Both systems were compared with manual measurements. Our results showed a positive linear correlation between the TCSA with the Orchard Robotics vision system and manual measurements, but the vision system underestimated the TCSA in comparison with the manual measurements (R2s between 0.5 and 0.79). Both vision systems showed a positive linear correlation between nubers of flowers and manual counts (R2s between 0.5 and 0.95). Thinning efficacy predictions (in June) were evaluated using the fruit growth rate model, by comparing manual measurements and the MaluSim computer app with the computer vision system of Pometa. Both systems showed accurate predictions when the numbers of fruits at harvest were lower than 200 fruit/tree, but our results suggest that, when the numbers of fruits at harvest were higher than 200 fruit/tree, both methods overestimated final fruit numbers per tree when compared with final fruit numbers at harvest (R2s 0.67 with both systems). Yield estimation was evaluated just before harvest (August) with the Pometa system. Yield estimation was accurate when fruit numbers were fewer than 75 fruit per tree, but, when the numbers of fruit at harvest were higher than 75 fruit per tree, the Pometa vision system underestimated the final yield (R2 = 0.67). Our results concluded that the Pometa system using a smartphone offered advantages such as low cost, quick access, simple operation, and accurate precision. The Orchard Robotics vision system with an advanced camera system provided more detailed and accurate information in terms of geo-referenced information for individual trees. Both vision systems evaluated are still in early development and have the potential to provide important information for orchard managers to improve crop load management decisions.