Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Andreas Kamilaris and Francesc X. Prenafeta-Boldú Institute for Food and Agricultural Research and Technology (IRTA) Abstract: Deep learning constitutes a recent, modern technique for image processing and data analysis, with promising results and large potential. As deep learning has been successfully applied in various domains, it has recently entered also the domain of agriculture. In this paper, we perform a survey of 40 research efforts that employ deep learning techniques, applied to various agricultural and food production challenges. We examine the particular agricultural problems under study, the specific models and frameworks employed, the sources, nature and pre-processing of data used, and the overall performance achieved according to the metrics used at each work under study. Moreover, we study comparisons of deep learning with other existing popular techniques, in respect to differences in classification or regression performance. Our findings indicate that deep learning provides high accuracy, outperforming existing commonly used image processing techniques. Keywords: Deep learning, Agriculture, Survey, Convolutional Neural Networks, Recurrent Neural Networks, Smart Farming, Food Systems. Corresponding Author. Email: email@example.com 1. Introduction Smart farming (Tyagi, 2016) is important for tackling the challenges of agricultural production in terms of productivity, environmental impact, food security and sustainability (Gebbers & Adamchuk, 2010). As the global population has been continuously increasing (Kitzes, et al., 2008), a large increase on food production must be achieved (FAO, 2009), maintaining at the same time availability and high nutritional quality across the globe, protecting the natural ecosystems by using sustainable farming procedures. To address these challenges, the complex, multivariate and unpredictable agricultural ecosystems need to be better understood by monitoring, measuring and analyzing continuously various physical aspects and phenomena. This implies analysis of big agricultural data (Kamilaris, Kartakoullis, & Prenafeta-Boldú, A review on the practice of big data analysis in agriculture, 2017), and the use of new information and communication technologies (ICT) (Kamilaris, Gao, Prenafeta-Boldú, & Ali, 2016), both for short-scale crop/farm management as well as for larger-scale ecosystems’ observation, enhancing the existing tasks of management and decision/policy making by context, situation and location awareness. Larger-scale observation is facilitated by remote sensing (Bastiaanssen, Molden, & Makin, 2000), performed by means of satellites, airplanes and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) (i.e. drones), providing wide-view snapshots of the agricultural environments. It has several advantages when applied to agriculture, being a well-known, non-destructive method to collect information about earth features while data may be obtained systematically over large geographical areas. A large subset of the volume of data collected through remote sensing involve images. Images constitute, in many cases, a complete picture of the agricultural environments and could address a variety of challenges (Liaghat & Balasundram, 2010), (Ozdogan, Yang, Allez, & Cervantes, 2010). Hence, imaging analysis is an important research area in the agricultural domain and intelligent data analysis techniques are being used for image identification/classification, anomaly detection etc., in various agricultural applications (Teke, Deveci, Haliloğlu, Gürbüz, & Sakarya, 2013), (Saxena & Armstrong, 2014), (Singh, Ganapathysubramanian, Singh, & Sarkar, 2016). The most popular techniques and applications are presented in Appendix I, together with the sensing methods employed to acquire the images. From existing sensing methods, the most common one is satellite- based, using multi-spectral and hyperspectral imaging. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR), thermal and near infrared (NIR) cameras are being used in a lesser but increasing extent (Ishimwe, Abutaleb, & Ahmed, 2014), while optical and X-ray imaging are being applied in fruit and packaged food grading. The most popular techniques used for analyzing images include machine learning (ML) (K-means, support vector machines (SVM), artificial neural networks (ANN) amongst others), linear polarizations, wavelet-based filtering, vegetation indices (NDVI) and regression analysis (Saxena & Armstrong, 2014), (Singh, Ganapathysubramanian, Singh, & Sarkar, 2016). Besides the aforementioned techniques, a new one which is recently gaining momentum is deep learning (DL) (LeCun, Bengio, & Hinton, 2015), (LeCun & Bengio, 1995). DL belongs to the machine learning computational field and is similar to ANN. However, DL is about “deeper” neural networks that provide a hierarchical representation of the data by means of various convolutions. This allows larger learning capabilities and thus higher performance and precision. A brief description of DL is attempted in Section 3. The motivation for preparing this survey stems from the fact that DL in agriculture is a recent, modern and promising technique with growing popularity, while advancements and applications of DL in other domains indicate its large potential. The fact that today there exists at least 40 research efforts employing DL to address various agricultural problems with very good results, encouraged the authors to prepare this survey. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first such survey in the agricultural domain, while a small number of more general surveys do exist (Deng & Yu, 2014), (Wan, et al., 2014), (Najafabadi, et al., 2015), covering related work in DL in other domains. 2. Methodology The bibliographic analysis in the domain under study involved two steps: a) collection of related work and b) detailed review and analysis of this work. In the first step, a keyword- based search for conference papers or journal articles was performed from the scientific databases IEEE Xplore and ScienceDirect, and from the web scientific indexing services Web of Science and Google Scholar. As search keywords, we used the following query: ["deep learning"] AND ["agriculture" OR ”farming"] In this way, we filtered out papers referring to DL but not applied to the agricultural domain. From this effort, 47 papers had been initially identified. Restricting the search for papers with appropriate application of the DL technique and meaningful findings , the initial number of papers reduced to 40. In the second step, the 40 papers selected from the previous step were analyzed one-by- one, considering the following research questions: 1. Which was the agricultural- or food-related problem they addressed? 2. Which was the general approach and type of DL-based models employed? 3. Which sources and types of data had been used? 4. Which were the classes and labels as modeled by the authors? Were there any variations among them, observed by the authors? 5. Any pre-processing of the data or data augmentation techniques used? 6. Which has been the overall performance depending on the metric adopted? 7. Did the authors test the performance of their models on different datasets? 8. Did the authors compare their approach with other techniques and, if yes, which was the difference in performance? Our main findings are presented in Section 4 and the detailed information per paper is A small number of papers claimed of using DL in some agricultural-related application, but they did not show any results nor provided performance metrics that could indicate the success of the technique used. listed in Appendix II. 3. Deep Learning DL extends classical ML by adding more "depth" (complexity) into the model as well as transforming the data using various functions that allow data representation in a hierarchical way, through several levels of abstraction (Schmidhuber, 2015), (LeCun & Bengio, 1995). A strong advantage of DL is feature learning, i.e. the automatic feature extraction from raw data, with features from higher levels of the hierarchy being formed by the composition of lower level features (LeCun, Bengio, & Hinton, 2015). DL can solve more complex problems particularly well and fast, because of more complex models used, which allow massive parallelization (Pan & Yang, 2010). These complex models employed in DL can increase classification accuracy or reduce error in regression problems, provided there are adequately large datasets available describing the problem. DL consists of various different components (e.g. convolutions, pooling layers, fully connected layers, gates, memory cells, activation functions, encode/decode schemes etc.), depending on the network architecture used (i.e. Unsupervised Pre-trained Networks, Convolutional Neural Networks, Recurrent Neural Networks, Recursive Neural Networks). The highly hierarchical structure and large learning capacity of DL models allow them to perform classification and predictions particularly well, being flexible and adaptable for a wide variety of highly complex (from a data analysis perspective) challenges (Pan & Yang, 2010). Although DL has met popularity in numerous applications dealing with raster-based data (e.g. video, images), it can be applied to any form of data, such as audio, speech, and natural language, or more generally to continuous or point data such as weather data (Sehgal, et al., 2017), soil chemistry (Song, et al., 2016) and population data (Demmers T. G., Cao, Parsons, Gauss, & Wathes, 2012). An example DL architecture is displayed in Figure 1, illustrating CaffeNet (Jia, et al., 2014), an example of a convolutional neural network, combining convolutional and fully connected (dense) layers. Figure 1: CaffeNet, an example CNN architecture. Source: (Sladojevic, Arsenovic, Anderla, Culibrk, & Stefanovic, 2016) Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) constitute a class of deep, feed-forward ANN, and they appear in numerous of the surveyed papers as the technique used (17 papers, 42%). As the figure shows, various convolutions are performed at some layers of the network, creating different representations of the learning dataset, starting from more general ones at the first larger layers, becoming more specific at the deeper layers. The convolutional layers act as feature extractors from the input images whose dimensionality is then reduced by the pooling layers. The convolutional layers encode multiple lower-level features into more discriminative features, in a way that is spatially context-aware. They may be understood as banks of filters that transform an input image into another, highlighting specific patterns. The fully connected layers, placed in many cases near the output of the model, act as classifiers exploiting the high-level features learned to classify input images in predefined classes or to make numerical predictions. They take a vector as input and produce another vector as output. An example visualization of leaf images after each processing step of the CaffeNet CNN, at a problem of identifying plant diseases, is depicted in Figure 2. We can observe that after each processing step, the particular elements of the image that reveal the indication of a disease become more evident, especially at the final step (Pool5). Figure 2: Visualization of the output layers images after each processing step of the CaffeNet CNN (i.e. convolution, pooling, normalization) at a plant disease identification problem based on leaf images. Source: (Sladojevic, Arsenovic, Anderla, Culibrk, & Stefanovic, 2016) One of the most important advantages of using DL in image processing is the reduced need of feature engineering (FE). Previously, traditional approaches for image classification tasks had been based on hand-engineered features, whose performance affected heavily the overall results. FE is a complex, time-consuming process which needs to be altered whenever the problem or the dataset changes. Thus, FE constitutes an expensive effort that depends on experts’ knowledge and does not generalize well (Amara, Bouaziz, & Algergawy, 2017). On the other hand, DL does not require FE, locating the important features itself through training. A disadvantage of DL is the generally longer training time. However, testing time is generally faster than other methods ML-based methods (Chen, Lin, Zhao, Wang, & Gu, 2014). Other disadvantages include problems that might occur when using pre-trained models on datasets that are small or significantly different, optimization issues because of the models’ complexity, as well as hardware restrictions. In Section 5, we discuss over advantages and disadvantages of DL as they reveal through the surveyed papers. 3.1 Available Architectures, Datasets and Tools There exist various successful and popular architectures, which researchers may use to start building their models instead of starting from scratch. These include AlexNet (Krizhevsky, Sutskever, & Hinton, 2012), CaffeNet (Jia, et al., 2014) (displayed in Figure 1), VGG (Simonyan & Zisserman, 2014), GoogleNet (Szegedy, et al., 2015) and Inception- ResNet (Szegedy, Ioffe, Vanhoucke, & Alemi, 2017), among others. Each architecture has different advantages and scenarios where it is more appropriate to be used (Canziani, Paszke, & Culurciello, 2016). It is also worth noting that almost all of the aforementioned models come along with their weights pre-trained, which means that their network had been already trained by some dataset and has thus learned to provide accurate classification for some particular problem domain (Pan & Yang, 2010). Common datasets used for pre-training DL architectures include ImageNet (Deng, et al., 2009) and PASCAL VOC (PASCAL VOC Project, 2012) (see also Appendix III). Moreover, there exist various tools and platforms allowing researchers to experiment with DL (Bahrampour, Ramakrishnan, Schott, & Shah, 2015). The most popular ones are Theano, TensorFlow, Keras (which is an application programmer's interface on top of Theano and TensorFlow), Caffe, PyTorch, TFLearn, Pylearn2 and the Deep Learning Matlab Toolbox. Some of these tools (i.e. Theano, Caffe) incorporate popular architectures such as the ones mentioned above (i.e. AlexNet, VGG, GoogleNet), either as libraries or classes. For a more elaborate description of the DL concept and its applications, the reader could refer to existing bibliography (Schmidhuber, 2015), (Deng & Yu, 2014), (Wan, et al., 2014), (Najafabadi, et al., 2015), (Canziani, Paszke, & Culurciello, 2016), (Bahrampour, Ramakrishnan, Schott, & Shah, 2015). 4. Deep Learning Applications in Agriculture In Appendix II, we list the 40 identified relevant works, indicating the agricultural-related research area, the particular problem they address, DL models and architectures implemented, sources of data used, classes and labels of the data, data pre-processing and/or augmentation employed, overall performance achieved according to the metrics adopted, as well as comparisons with other techniques, wherever available. 4.1 Areas of Use Sixteen areas have been identified in total, with the popular ones being identification of weeds (5 papers), land cover classification (4 papers), plant recognition (4 papers), fruits counting (4 papers) and crop type classification (4 papers). It is remarkable that all papers, except from (Demmers T. G., et al., 2010), (Demmers T. G., Cao, Parsons, Gauss, & Wathes, 2012) and (Chen, Lin, Zhao, Wang, & Gu, 2014), were published during or after 2015, indicating how recent and modern this technique is, in the domain of agriculture. More precisely, from the remaining 37 papers, 15 papers have been published in 2017, 15 in 2016 and 7 in 2015. The large majority of the papers deal with image classification and identification of areas of interest, including detection of obstacles (e.g. (Steen, Christiansen, Karstoft, & Jørgensen, 2016), (Christiansen, Nielsen, Steen, Jørgensen, & Karstoft, 2016)) and fruit counting (e.g. (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017), (Sa, et al., 2016)). Some papers focus on predicting future parameters, such as corn yield (Kuwata & Shibasaki, 2015) soil moisture content at the field (Song, et al., 2016) and weather conditions (Sehgal, et al., 2017). From another perspective, most papers (20) target crops, while few works consider issues such as weed detection (8 papers), land cover (4 papers), research on soil (2 papers), livestock agriculture (3 papers), obstacle detection (3 papers) and weather prediction (1 paper). 4.2 Data Sources Observing the sources of data used to train the DL model at every paper, large datasets of images are mainly used, containing thousands of images in some cases, either real ones (e.g. (Mohanty, Hughes, & Salathé, 2016), (Reyes, Caicedo, & Camargo, 2015), (Dyrmann, Karstoft, & Midtiby, 2016 )), or synthetic produced by the authors (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017), (Dyrmann, Mortensen, Midtiby, & Jørgensen, 2016). Some datasets originate from well-known and publicly-available datasets such as PlantVillage, LifeCLEF, MalayaKew, UC Merced and Flavia (see Appendix III), while others constitute sets of real images collected by the authors for their research needs (e.g. (Sladojevic, Arsenovic, Anderla, Culibrk, & Stefanovic, 2016), (Bargoti & Underwood, 2016), (Xinshao & Cheng, 2015), (Sørensen, Rasmussen, Nielsen, & Jørgensen, 2017)). Papers dealing with land cover, crop type classification and yield estimation, as well as some papers related to weed detection employ a smaller number of images (e.g. tens of images), produced by UAV (Lu, et al., 2017), (Rebetez, J., et al., 2016), (Milioto, Lottes, & Stachniss, 2017), airborne (Chen, Lin, Zhao, Wang, & Gu, 2014), (Luus, Salmon, van den Bergh, & Maharaj, 2015) or satellite-based remote sensing (Kussul, Lavreniuk, Skakun, & Shelestov, 2017), (Minh, et al., 2017), (Ienco, Gaetano, Dupaquier, & Maurel, 2017), (Rußwurm & Körner, 2017). A particular paper investigating segmentation of root and soil uses images from X-ray tomography (Douarre, Schielein, Frindel, Gerth, & Rousseau, 2016). Moreover, some papers use text data, collected either from repositories (Kuwata & Shibasaki, 2015), (Sehgal, et al., 2017) or field sensors (Song, et al., 2016), (Demmers T. G., et al., 2010), (Demmers T. G., Cao, Parsons, Gauss, & Wathes, 2012). In general, the more complicated the problem to be solved, the more data is required. For example, problems involving large number of classes to identify (Mohanty, Hughes, & Salathé, 2016), (Reyes, Caicedo, & Camargo, 2015), (Xinshao & Cheng, 2015) and/or small Variation among the classes (Luus, Salmon, van den Bergh, & Maharaj, 2015), (Rußwurm & Körner, 2017), (Yalcin, 2017 ), (Namin, Esmaeilzadeh, Najafi, Brown, & Borevitz, 2017), (Xinshao & Cheng, 2015), require large number of input images to train their models. 4.3 Data Variation Variation between classes is necessary for the DL models to be able to differentiate features and characteristics, and perform accurate classifications . Hence, accuracy is positively correlated with variation among classes. Nineteen papers (47%) revealed some aspects of poor data variation. Luus et al. (Luus, Salmon, van den Bergh, & Maharaj, 2015) observed high relevance between some land cover classes (i.e. medium density and dense residential, buildings and storage tanks) while Ienko et al. (Ienco, Gaetano, Dupaquier, & Maurel, 2017) found that tree crops, summer crops and truck farming were classes highly mixed. A confusion between maize and soybeans was evident in (Kussul, Lavreniuk, Skakun, & Shelestov, 2017) and variation was low in botanically related crops, such as meadow, fallow, triticale, wheat, and rye (Rußwurm & Körner, 2017). Moreover, some particular views of the plants (i.e. flowers and leaf scans) offer different classification accuracy than branches, stems and photos of the entire plant. A serious issue in plant phenology recognition is the fact that appearances change very gradually and it is challenging to distinguish images falling into the growing durations that are in the middle of two successive stages (Yalcin, 2017 ), (Namin, Esmaeilzadeh, Najafi, Brown, & Borevitz, 2017). A similar issue appears when assessing the quality of vegetative development (Minh, et al., 2017). Furthermore, in the challenging problem of fruit counting, the models suffer from high occlusion, depth variation, and uncontrolled illumination, including high color similarity between fruit/foliage (Chen, et al., 2017), (Bargoti & Underwood, 2016). Finally, identification of weeds faces issues with respect to lighting, resolution, and soil type, and small variation between weeds and crops in shape, texture, color and position (i.e. overlapping) (Dyrmann, Karstoft, & Midtiby, 2016 ), (Xinshao & Cheng, 2015), (Dyrmann, Jørgensen, & Midtiby, 2017). In the large majority of the papers mentioned above (except from (Minh, et al., 2017)), this low variation has affected classification Classification accuracy is defined in Section 4.7 and Table 1. accuracy significantly, i.e. more than 5%. 4.4 Data Pre-Processing The large majority of related work (36 papers, 90%) involved some image pre-processing steps, before the image or particular characteristics/features/statistics of the image were fed as an input to the DL model. The most common pre-processing procedure was image resize (16 papers), in most cases to a smaller size, in order to adapt to the requirements of the DL model. Sizes of 256x256, 128x128, 96x96 and 60x60 pixels were common. Image segmentation was also a popular practice (12 papers), either to increase the size of the dataset (Ienco, Gaetano, Dupaquier, & Maurel, 2017), (Rebetez, J., et al., 2016), (Yalcin, 2017 ) or to facilitate the learning process by highlighting regions of interest (Sladojevic, Arsenovic, Anderla, Culibrk, & Stefanovic, 2016), (Mohanty, Hughes, & Salathé, 2016), (Grinblat, Uzal, Larese, & Granitto, 2016), (Sa, et al., 2016), (Dyrmann, Karstoft, & Midtiby, 2016 ), (Potena, Nardi, & Pretto, 2016) or to enable easier data annotation by experts and volunteers (Chen, et al., 2017), (Bargoti & Underwood, 2016). Background removal (Mohanty, Hughes, & Salathé, 2016), (McCool, Perez, & Upcroft, 2017), (Milioto, Lottes, & Stachniss, 2017), foreground pixel extraction (Lee, Chan, Wilkin, & Remagnino, 2015) or non-green pixels removal based on NDVI masks (Dyrmann, Karstoft, & Midtiby, 2016 ), (Potena, Nardi, & Pretto, 2016) were also performed to reduce the datasets’ overall noise. Other operations involved the creation of bounding boxes (Chen, et al., 2017), (Sa, et al., 2016), (McCool, Perez, & Upcroft, 2017), (Milioto, Lottes, & Stachniss, 2017) to facilitate detection of weeds or counting of fruits. Some datasets were converted to grayscale (Santoni, Sensuse, Arymurthy, & Fanany, 2015), (Amara, Bouaziz, & Algergawy, 2017) or to the HSV color model (Luus, Salmon, van den Bergh, & Maharaj, 2015), (Lee, Chan, Wilkin, & Remagnino, 2015). Furthermore, some papers used features extracted from the images as input to their models, such as shape and statistical features (Hall, McCool, Dayoub, Sunderhauf, & Upcroft, 2015), histograms (Hall, McCool, Dayoub, Sunderhauf, & Upcroft, 2015), (Xinshao & Cheng, 2015), (Rebetez, J., et al., 2016), Principal Component Analysis (PCA) filters (Xinshao & Cheng, 2015), Wavelet transformations (Kuwata & Shibasaki, 2015) and Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) features (Santoni, Sensuse, Arymurthy, & Fanany, 2015). Satellite or aerial images involved a combination of pre-processing steps such as orthorectification (Lu, et al., 2017), (Minh, et al., 2017) calibration and terrain correction (Kussul, Lavreniuk, Skakun, & Shelestov, 2017), (Minh, et al., 2017) and atmospheric correction (Rußwurm & Körner, 2017). 4.5 Data Augmentation It is worth-mentioning that some of the related work under study (15 papers, 37%) employed data augmentation techniques (Krizhevsky, Sutskever, & Hinton, 2012), to enlarge artificially their number of training images. This helps to improve the overall learning procedure and performance, and for generalization purposes, by means of feeding the model with varied data. This augmentation process is important for papers that possess only small datasets to train their DL models, such as (Bargoti & Underwood, 2016), (Sladojevic, Arsenovic, Anderla, Culibrk, & Stefanovic, 2016), (Sørensen, Rasmussen, Nielsen, & Jørgensen, 2017), (Mortensen, Dyrmann, Karstoft, Jørgensen, & Gislum, 2016), (Namin, Esmaeilzadeh, Najafi, Brown, & Borevitz, 2017) and (Chen, et al., 2017). This process was especially important in papers where the authors trained their models using synthetic images and tested them on real ones (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017) and (Dyrmann, Mortensen, Midtiby, & Jørgensen, 2016). In this case, data augmentation allowed their models to generalize and be able to adapt to the real-world problems more easily. Transformations are label-preserving, and included rotations (12 papers), dataset partitioning/cropping (3 papers), scaling (3 papers), transposing (Sørensen, Rasmussen, Nielsen, & Jørgensen, 2017), mirroring (Dyrmann, Karstoft, & Midtiby, 2016 ), translations and perspective transform (Sladojevic, Arsenovic, Anderla, Culibrk, & Stefanovic, 2016), adaptations of objects’ intensity in an object detection problem (Steen, Christiansen, Karstoft, & Jørgensen, 2016) and a PCA augmentation technique (Bargoti & Underwood, 2016). Papers involving simulated data performed additional augmentation techniques such as varying the HSV channels and adding random shadows (Dyrmann, Mortensen, Midtiby, & Jørgensen, 2016) or adding simulated roots to soil images (Douarre, Schielein, Frindel, Gerth, & Rousseau, 2016). 4.6 Technical Details From a technical side, almost half of the research works (17 papers, 42%) employed popular CNN architectures such as AlexNet, VGG16 and Inception-ResNet. From the rest, 14 papers developed their own CNN models, 2 papers adopted a first-order Differential Recurrent Neural Networks (DRNN) model, 5 papers preferred to use a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) model (Gers, Schmidhuber, & Cummins, 2000), one paper used deep belief networks (DBN) and one paper employed a hybrid of PCA with auto-encoders (AE). Some of the CNN approaches combined their model with a classifier at the output layer, such as logistic regression (Chen, Lin, Zhao, Wang, & Gu, 2014), Scalable Vector Machines (SVM) (Douarre, Schielein, Frindel, Gerth, & Rousseau, 2016), linear regression (Chen, et al., 2017), Large Margin Classifiers (LCM) (Xinshao & Cheng, 2015) and macroscopic cellular automata (Song, et al., 2016). Regarding the frameworks used, all the works that employed some well-known CNN architecture had also used a DL framework, with Caffe being the most popular (13 papers, 32%), followed by Tensor Flow (2 papers) and deeplearning4j (1 paper). Ten research works developed their own software, while some authors decided to build their own models on top of Caffe (5 papers), Keras/Theano (5 papers), Keras/TensorFlow (4 papers), Pylearn2 (1 paper), MatConvNet (1 paper) and Deep Learning Matlab Toolbox (1 paper). A possible reason for the wide use of Caffe is that it incorporates various CNN frameworks and datasets, which can be used then easily and automatically by its users. Most of the studies divided their dataset between training and testing/verification data using a ratio of 80-20 or 90-10 respectively. In addition, various learning rates have been recorded, from 0.001 (Amara, Bouaziz, & Algergawy, 2017) and 0.005 (Mohanty, Hughes, & Salathé, 2016) up to 0.01 (Grinblat, Uzal, Larese, & Granitto, 2016). Learning rate is about how quickly a network learns. Higher values help avoid the solver being stuck in local minima, which can reduce performance significantly. A general approach used by many of the evaluated papers is to start out with a high learning rate and lower it as the training goes on. We note that learning rate is very dependent on the network architecture. Moreover, most of the research works that incorporated popular DL architectures took advantage of transfer learning (Pan & Yang, 2010), which concerns leveraging the already existing knowledge of some related task or domain in order to increase the learning efficiency of the problem under study by fine-tuning pre-trained models. As sometimes it is not possible to train a network from scratch due to having a small training data set or having a complex multi-task network, it is required that the network be at least partially initialized with weights from another pre-trained model. A common transfer learning technique is the use of pre-trained CNN, which are CNN models that have been already trained on some relevant dataset with possibly different number of classes. These models are then adapted to the particular challenge and dataset. This method was followed (among others) in (Lu, et al., 2017), (Douarre, Schielein, Frindel, Gerth, & Rousseau, 2016), (Reyes, Caicedo, & Camargo, 2015), (Bargoti & Underwood, 2016), (Steen, Christiansen, Karstoft, & Jørgensen, 2016), (Lee, Chan, Wilkin, & Remagnino, 2015), (Sa, et al., 2016), (Mohanty, Hughes, & Salathé, 2016), (Christiansen, Nielsen, Steen, Jørgensen, & Karstoft, 2016), (Sørensen, Rasmussen, Nielsen, & Jørgensen, 2017), for the VGG16, DenseNet, AlexNet and GoogleNet architectures. 4.7 Outputs Finally, concerning the 31 papers that involved classification, the classes as used by the authors ranged from 2 (Lu, et al., 2017), (Pound, M. P., et al., 2016), (Douarre, Schielein, Frindel, Gerth, & Rousseau, 2016), (Milioto, Lottes, & Stachniss, 2017) up to 1,000 (Reyes, Caicedo, & Camargo, 2015). A large number of classes was observed in (Luus, Salmon, van den Bergh, & Maharaj, 2015) (21 land-use classes), (Rebetez, J., et al., 2016) (22 different crops plus soil), (Lee, Chan, Wilkin, & Remagnino, 2015) (44 plant species) and (Xinshao & Cheng, 2015) (91 classes of common weeds found in agricultural fields). In these papers, the number of outputs of the model was equal to the number of classes respectively. Each output was a different probability for the input image, segment, blob or pixel to belong to each class, and then the model picked the highest probability as its predicted class. From the rest 9 papers, 2 performed predictions of fruits counted (scalar value as output) (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017), (Chen, et al., 2017), 2 identified regions of fruits in the image (multiple bounding boxes) (Bargoti & Underwood, 2016), (Sa, et al., 2016), 2 predicted animal growth (scalar value) (Demmers T. G., et al., 2010), (Demmers T. G., Cao, Parsons, Gauss, & Wathes, 2012), one predicted weather conditions (scalar value) (Sehgal, et al., 2017), one crop yield index (scalar value) (Kuwata & Shibasaki, 2015) and one paper predicted percentage of soil moisture content (scalar value) (Song, et al., 2016). 4.8 Performance Metrics Regarding methods used to evaluate performance, various metrics have been employed by the authors, each being specific to the model used at each study. Table 1 lists these metrics, together with their definition/description, and the symbol we use to refer to them in this survey. In some papers where the authors referred to accuracy without specifying its definition, we assumed they referred to classification accuracy (CA, first metric listed in Table 1). From this point onwards, we refer to “DL performance” as its score in some performance metric from the ones listed in Table 1. Table 1: Performance metrics used in related work under study. Performance Symbol No. Description Metric Used The percentage of correct predictions where the top class (the one having the highest probability), as indicated by the DL model, is the Classification same as the target label as annotated beforehand by the authors. For 1. CA Accuracy multi-class classification problems, CA is averaged among all the classes. CA is mentioned as Rank-1 identification rate in (Hall, McCool, Dayoub, Sunderhauf, & Upcroft, 2015). The fraction of true positives (TP, correct predictions) from the total amount of relevant results, i.e. the sum of TP and false positives (FP). 2. Precision P For multi-class classification problems, P is averaged among the classes. P=TP/(TP+FP) The fraction of TP from the total amount of TP and false negatives 3. Recall R (FN). For multi-class classification problems, R gets averaged among all the classes. R=TP/(TP+FN) The harmonic mean of precision and recall. For multi-class classification problems, F1 gets averaged among all the classes. It is 4. F1 score F1 mentioned as F-measure in (Minh, et al., 2017). F1=2 * (TP*FP) / (TP+FP) A score related to the rank of the correct species in the list of retrieved 5. LifeCLEF metric LC species Obtained by multiplying sensitivity (proportion of pixels that were 6. Quality Measure QM detected correctly) and specificity (which proportion of detected pixels are truly correct). QM=TP2 / ((TP+FP)(TP+FN)) Mean of the square of the errors between predicted and observed 7. Mean Square Error MSE values. Standard deviation of the differences between predicted values and Root Mean Square 8. RMSE observed values. A normalized RMSE (N-RMSE) has been used in Error (Sehgal, et al., 2017). Mean Relative The mean error between predicted and observed values, in 9. MRE Error percentage. Ratio of the predicted count of fruits by the model, with the actual Ratio of total fruits count. The actual count was attained by taking the average count of 10. RFC counted individuals (i.e. experts or volunteers) observing the images independently. Root of the squares of the sums of the differences between predicted 11. L2 error L2 counts of fruits by the model and the actual counts. A metric that evaluates predicted bounding boxes, by dividing the area of overlap between the predicted and the ground truth boxes, by the Intersection over 12. IoU area of their union. An average (Dyrmann, Mortensen, Midtiby, & Union Jørgensen, 2016) or frequency weighted (Mortensen, Dyrmann, Karstoft, Jørgensen, & Gislum, 2016) IoU can be calculated. 13. CA-IoU, F1-IoU, CA-IoU These are the same CA, F1, P and R metrics as defined above, LifeCLEF 2015 Challenge. http://www.imageclef.org/lifeclef/2015/plant combined with IoU in order to consider true/false positives/negatives. P-IoU or R-IoU F1-IoU Used in problems involving bounding boxes. This is done by putting a P-IoU minimum threshold on IoU, i.e. any value above this threshold would R-IoU be considered as positive by the metric (and the model involved). Thresholds of 20% (Bargoti & Underwood, 2016), 40% (Sa, et al., 2016) and 50% (Steen, Christiansen, Karstoft, & Jørgensen, 2016), (Christiansen, Nielsen, Steen, Jørgensen, & Karstoft, 2016), (Dyrmann, Jørgensen, & Midtiby, 2017) have been observed . CA was the most popular metric used (24 papers, 60%), followed by F1 (10 papers, 25%). Some papers included RMSE (4 papers), IoU (3 papers), RFC (Chen, et al., 2017), (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017) or others. Some works used a combination of metrics to evaluate their efforts. We note that some papers employing CA, F1, P or R, used IoU in order to consider a model’s prediction (Bargoti & Underwood, 2016), (Sa, et al., 2016), (Steen, Christiansen, Karstoft, & Jørgensen, 2016), (Christiansen, Nielsen, Steen, Jørgensen, & Karstoft, 2016), (Dyrmann, Jørgensen, & Midtiby, 2017). In these cases, a minimum threshold was put on IoU, and any value above this threshold would be considered as positive by the model. We note that in some cases, a trade-off can exist between metrics. For example, in a weed detection problem (Milioto, Lottes, & Stachniss, 2017), it might be desirable to have a high R to eliminate most weeds, but not eliminating crops is of a critical importance, hence a lower P might be acceptable. 4.9 Overall Performance We note that it is difficult if not impossible to compare between papers, as different metrics are employed for different tasks, considering different models, datasets and parameters. Hence, the reader should consider our comments in this section with some caution. In 19 out of the 24 papers that involved CA as a metric, accuracy was high (i.e. above 90%), indicating good performance. The highest CA has been observed in the works of (Hall, McCool, Dayoub, Sunderhauf, & Upcroft, 2015), (Pound, M. P., et al., 2016), (Chen, In Appendix II, where we list the values of the metrics used at each paper, we denote CA-IoU(x), F1-IoU(x), P-IoU(x) or R-IoU(x), where x is the threshold (in percentage), over which results are considered as positive by the DL model employed. Lin, Zhao, Wang, & Gu, 2014), (Lee, Chan, Wilkin, & Remagnino, 2015), (Minh, et al., 2017), (Potena, Nardi, & Pretto, 2016) and (Steen, Christiansen, Karstoft, & Jørgensen, 2016), with values of 98% or more, constituting remarkable results. From the 10 papers using F1 as metric, 5 had values higher than 0.90 with the highest F1 observed in (Mohanty, Hughes, & Salathé, 2016) and (Minh, et al., 2017) with values higher than 0.99. The works of (Dyrmann, Karstoft, & Midtiby, 2016 ), (Rußwurm & Körner, 2017), (Ienco, Gaetano, Dupaquier, & Maurel, 2017), (Mortensen, Dyrmann, Karstoft, Jørgensen, & Gislum, 2016), (Rebetez, J., et al., 2016), (Christiansen, Nielsen, Steen, Jørgensen, & Karstoft, 2016) and (Yalcin, 2017 ) were among the ones with the lowest CA (i.e. 73-79%) and/or F1 scores (i.e. 0.558 - 0.746), however state of the art work in these particular problems has shown lower CA (i.e. SVM, RF, Naïve- Bayes classifier). Particularly in (Rußwurm & Körner, 2017), the three-unit LSTM model employed provided 16.3% better CA than a CNN, which belongs to the family of DL. Besides, the above can be considered as “harder” problems, because of the use of satellite data (Ienco, Gaetano, Dupaquier, & Maurel, 2017), (Rußwurm & Körner, 2017) large number of classes (Dyrmann, Karstoft, & Midtiby, 2016 ), (Rußwurm & Körner, 2017), (Rebetez, J., et al., 2016), small training datasets (Mortensen, Dyrmann, Karstoft, Jørgensen, & Gislum, 2016), (Christiansen, Nielsen, Steen, Jørgensen, & Karstoft, 2016) or very low variation among the classes (Yalcin, 2017 ), (Dyrmann, Karstoft, & Midtiby, 2016 ), (Rebetez, J., et al., 2016). 4.10 Generalizations on Different Datasets It is important to examine whether the authors had tested their implementations on the same dataset (e.g. by dividing the dataset into training and testing/validation sets) or used different datasets to test their solution. From the 40 papers, only 8 (20%) used different datasets for testing than the one for training. From these, 2 approaches trained their models by using simulated data and tested on real data (Dyrmann, Mortensen, Midtiby, & Jørgensen, 2016), (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017) and 2 papers tested their models on a dataset produced 2-4 weeks after, with a more advanced growth stage of plants and weeds (Milioto, Lottes, & Stachniss, 2017), (Potena, Nardi, & Pretto, 2016). Moreover, 3 papers used different fields for testing than the ones used for training (McCool, Perez, & Upcroft, 2017), with a severe degree of occlusion compared to the other training field (Dyrmann, Jørgensen, & Midtiby, 2017), or containing other obstacles such as people and animals (Steen, Christiansen, Karstoft, & Jørgensen, 2016). Sa et al. (Sa, et al., 2016) used a different dataset to evaluate whether the model can generalize on different fruits. From the other 32 papers, different trees were used in training and testing in (Chen, et al., 2017), while different rooms for pigs (Demmers T. G., Cao, Parsons, Gauss, & Wathes, 2012) and chicken (Demmers T. G., et al., 2010) were considered. Moreover, Hall et al. applied condition variations in testing (i.e. translations, scaling, rotations, shading and occlusions) (Hall, McCool, Dayoub, Sunderhauf, & Upcroft, 2015) while scaling for a certain range translation distance and rotation angle was performed on the testing dataset in (Xinshao & Cheng, 2015). The rest 27 papers did not perform any changes between the training/testing datasets, a fact that lowers the overall confidence for the results presented. Finally, it is interesting to observe how these generalizations affected the performance of the models, at least in cases where both data from same and different datasets were used in testing. In (Sa, et al., 2016), F1-IoU(40) was higher for the detection of apples (0.938), strawberry (0.948), avocado (0.932) and mango (0.942), than in the default case of sweet pepper (0.838). In (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017), RFC was 2% less in the real images than in the synthetic ones. In (Potena, Nardi, & Pretto, 2016), CA was 37.6% less at the dataset involving plants of 4-weeks more advanced growth. According to the authors, the model was trained based on plants that were in their first growth stage, thus without their complete morphological features, which were included in the testing dataset. Moreover, in (Milioto, Lottes, & Stachniss, 2017) P was 2% higher at the 2-weeks more advanced growth dataset, with 9% lower R. Hence, in the first case there was improvement in performance (Sa, et al., 2016), and in the last three cases a reduction, slight one in (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017) and (Milioto, Lottes, & Stachniss, 2017) but considerable in (Potena, Nardi, & Pretto, 2016). From the other papers using different testing datasets, as mentioned above, high percentages of CA (94-97.3%), P-IoU (86.6%) and low values of MRE (1.8 -10%) have been reported. These show that the DL models were able to generalize well to different datasets. However, without more comparisons, this is only a speculation that can be figured out of the small number of observations available. 4.11 Performance Comparison with Other Approaches A critical aspect of this survey is to examine how DL performs in relation to other existing th techniques. The 14 column of Appendix II presents whether the authors of related work compared their DL-based approach with other techniques used for solving their problem under study. We focus only on comparisons between techniques used for the same dataset at the same research paper, with the same metric. In almost all cases, the DL models outperform other approaches implemented for comparison purposes. CNN show 1-8% higher CA in comparison to SVM (Chen, Lin, Zhao, Wang, & Gu, 2014), (Lee, Chan, Wilkin, & Remagnino, 2015), (Grinblat, Uzal, Larese, & Granitto, 2016), (Pound, M. P., et al., 2016), 41% improvement of CA when compared to ANN (Lee, Chan, Wilkin, & Remagnino, 2015) and 3-8% higher CA when compared to RF (Kussul, Lavreniuk, Skakun, & Shelestov, 2017), (Minh, et al., 2017), (McCool, Perez, & Upcroft, 2017), (Potena, Nardi, & Pretto, 2016), (Hall, McCool, Dayoub, Sunderhauf, & Upcroft, 2015). CNN also seem to be superior than unsupervised feature learning with 3-11% higher CA (Luus, Salmon, van den Bergh, & Maharaj, 2015), 2-44% improved CA in relation to local shape and color features (Dyrmann, Karstoft, & Midtiby, 2016 ), (Sørensen, Rasmussen, Nielsen, & Jørgensen, 2017), and 2% better CA (Kussul, Lavreniuk, Skakun, & Shelestov, 2017) or 18% less RMSE (Song, et al., 2016) compared to multilayer perceptrons. CNN had also superior performance than Penalized Discriminant Analysis (Grinblat, Uzal, Larese, & Granitto, 2016), SVM Regression (Kuwata & Shibasaki, 2015), area-based techniques (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017), texture- based regression models (Chen, et al., 2017), LMC classifiers (Xinshao & Cheng, 2015), Gaussian Mixture Models (Santoni, Sensuse, Arymurthy, & Fanany, 2015) and Naïve- Bayes classifiers (Yalcin, 2017 ). In cases where Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) (Mandic & Chambers, 2001) architectures were employed, the LSTM model had 1% higher CA than RF and SVM in (Ienco, Gaetano, Dupaquier, & Maurel, 2017), 44% improved CA than SVM in (Rußwurm & Körner, 2017) and 7-9% better CA than RF and SVM in (Minh, et al., 2017). In only one case, DL showed worse performance against another technique, and this was when a CNN was compared to an approach involving local descriptors to represent images together with KNN as the classification strategy (20% worse LC) (Reyes, Caicedo, & Camargo, 2015). 5. Discussion Our analysis has shown that DL offers superior performance in the vast majority of related work. When comparing the performance of DL-based approaches with other techniques at each paper, it is of paramount importance to adhere to the same experimental conditions (i.e. datasets and performance metrics). From the related work under study, 28 out of the 40 papers (70%) performed direct, valid and correct comparisons among the DL-based approach employed and other state-of-art techniques used to solve the particular problem tackled at each paper. Due to the fact that each paper involved different datasets, pre- processing techniques, metrics, models and parameters, it is difficult if not impossible to generalize and perform comparisons between papers. Thus, our comparisons have been strictly limited among the techniques used at each paper. Thus, based on these constraints, we have observed that DL has outperformed traditional approaches used such as SVM, RF, ANN, LMC classifiers and others. It seems that the automatic feature extraction performed by DL models is more effective than the feature extraction process through traditional approaches such as Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT), GLCM, histograms, area-based techniques (ABT), statistics-, texture-, color- and shape-based algorithms, conditional random fields to model color and visual texture features, local de- correlated channel features and other manual feature extraction techniques. This is reinforced by the combined CNN+LSTM model employed in (Namin, Esmaeilzadeh, Najafi, Brown, & Borevitz, 2017), which outperformed a LSTM model which used hand crafted feature descriptors as inputs by 25% higher CA. Interesting attempts to combine hand- crafted features and CNN-based features were performed in (Hall, McCool, Dayoub, Sunderhauf, & Upcroft, 2015) and (Rebetez, J., et al., 2016). Although DL has been associated with computer vision and image analysis (which is also the general case in this survey), we have observed 5 related works where DL-based models have been trained based on field sensory data (Kuwata & Shibasaki, 2015), (Sehgal, et al., 2017) and a combination of static and dynamic environmental variables (Song, et al., 2016), (Demmers T. G., et al., 2010), (Demmers T. G., Cao, Parsons, Gauss, & Wathes, 2012). These papers indicate the potential of DL to be applied in a wide variety of agricultural problems, not only those involving images. Examining agricultural areas where DL techniques have been applied, leaf classification, leaf and plant disease detection, plant recognition and fruit counting have some papers which present very good performance (i.e. CA > 95%, F1 > 0.92 or RFC > 0.9). This is probably because of the availability of datasets in these domains, as well as the distinct characteristics of (sick) leaves/plants and fruits in the image. On the other hand, some papers in land cover classification, crop type classification, plant phenology recognition and weed detection showed average performance (i.e. CA < 87% or F1 < 0.8). This could be due to leaf occlusion in weed detection, use of noise-prone satellite imagery in land cover problems, crops with low variation and botanical relationship or the fact that appearances change very gradually while plants grow in phenology recognition efforts. Without underestimating the quality of any of the surveyed papers, we highlight some that claim high performance (CA > 91%, F1-IoU(20) > 0.90 or RFC > 0.91), considering the complexity of the problem in terms of its definition or the large number of classes involved (more than 21 classes). These papers are the following: (Mohanty, Hughes, & Salathé, 2016), (Luus, Salmon, van den Bergh, & Maharaj, 2015), (Lee, Chan, Wilkin, & Remagnino, 2015), (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017), (Chen, et al., 2017), (Bargoti & Underwood, 2016), (Xinshao & Cheng, 2015) and (Hall, McCool, Dayoub, Sunderhauf, & Upcroft, 2015). We also highlight papers that trained their models on simulated data, and tested them on real data, which are (Dyrmann, Mortensen, Midtiby, & Jørgensen, 2016), (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017), and (Douarre, Schielein, Frindel, Gerth, & Rousseau, 2016). These works constitute important efforts in the DL community, as they attempt to solve the problem of inexistent or not large enough datasets in various problems. Finally, as discussed in Section 4.10, most authors used the same datasets for training and testing their implementation, a fact that lowers the confidence in the overall findings, although there have been indications that the models seem to generalize well, with only small reductions in performance. 5.1 Advanced Deep Learning Applications Although the majority of papers used typical CNN architectures to perform classification (23 papers, 57%), some authors experimented with more advanced models in order to solve more complex problems, such as crop type classification from UAV imagery (CNN + HistNN using RGB histograms) (Rebetez, J., et al., 2016), estimating number of tomato fruits (Modified Inception-ResNet CNN) (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017) and estimating number of orange or apple fruits (CNN adapted for blob detection and counting + Linear Regression) (Chen, et al., 2017). Particularly interesting were the approaches employing the Faster Region-based CNN + VGG16 model (Bargoti & Underwood, 2016), (Sa, et al., 2016), in order not only to count fruits and vegetables, but also to locate their placement in the image by means of bounding boxes. Similarly, the work in (Dyrmann, Jørgensen, & Midtiby, 2017) used the DetectNet CNN to detect bounding boxes of weed instances in images of cereal fields. These approaches (Faster Region-based CNN, DetectNet CNN) constitute a very promising research direction, since the task of identifying the bounding box of fruits/vegetables/weeds in an image has numerous real-life applications and could solve various agricultural problems Moreover, considering not only space but also time series, some authors employed RNN- based models in land cover classification (one-unit LSTM model + SVM) (Ienco, Gaetano, Dupaquier, & Maurel, 2017), crop type classification (three-unit LSTM) (Rußwurm & Körner, 2017), classification of different accessions of Arabidopsis thaliana based on successive top-view images (CNN+ LSTM) (Namin, Esmaeilzadeh, Najafi, Brown, & Borevitz, 2017), mapping winter vegetation quality coverage (Five-unit LSTM, Gated Recurrent Unit) (Minh, et al., 2017), estimating the weight of pigs or chickens (DRNN) (Demmers T. G., et al., 2010), (Demmers T. G., Cao, Parsons, Gauss, & Wathes, 2012) and for predicting weather based on previous year’s conditions (LSTM) (Sehgal, et al., 2017). RNN-based models offer higher performance, as they can capture the time dimension, which is impossible to be exploited by simple CNN. RNN architectures tend to exhibit dynamic temporal behavior, being able to record long-short temporal dependencies, remembering and forgetting after some time or when needed (i.e. LSTM). Differences in performance between RNN and CNN are distinct in the related work under study, as shown in Table 2. This 16% improvement in CA could be attributed to the additional information provided by the time series. For example, in the crop type classification case (Rußwurm & Körner, 2017), the authors mention, “crops change their spectral characteristics due to environmental influences and can thus not be monitored effectively with classical mono-temporal approaches. Performance of temporal models increases at the beginning of vegetation period”. LSTM-based approaches work well also for low represented and difficult classes, as demonstrated in (Ienco, Gaetano, Dupaquier, & Maurel, 2017). Table 2: Difference in Performance between CNN and RNN. Application in Performan Reference No. Difference in Performance Agriculture ce Metric Three-unit LSTM: 76.2% (CA), (Rußwurm & Körner, 2017) Crop type classification 1. CA, F1 0.558 (F1) considering time series CNN: 59.9% (CA), 0.236 (F1) Classify the phenotyping (Namin, Esmaeilzadeh, CNN+ LSTM: 93% 2. of Arabidopsis in four CA Najafi, Brown, & Borevitz, CNN: 76.8% accessions 2017) Finally, the critical aspect of fast processing of DL models in order to be easily used in robots for real-time decision making (e.g. detection of weeds) was examined in (McCool, Perez, & Upcroft, 2017), and it is worth-mentioning. The authors have showed that a lightweight implementation had only a small penalty in CA (3.90%), being much faster (i.e. processing of 40.6 times more pixels per second). They proposed the idea of “teacher and student networks”, where the teacher is the more heavy approach that helps the student (light implementation) to learn faster and better. 5.2 Advantages of Deep Learning Except from improvements in performance of the classification/prediction problems in the surveyed works (see Sections 4.9 and 4.11), the advantage of DL in terms of reduced effort in feature engineering was demonstrated in many of the papers. Hand-engineered components require considerable time, an effort that takes place automatically in DL. Besides, sometimes manual search for good feature extractors is not an easy and obvious task. For example, in the case of estimating crop yield (Kuwata & Shibasaki, 2015), extracting manually features that significantly affected crop growth was not possible. This was also the case of estimating the soil moisture content (Song, et al., 2016). Moreover, DL models seem to generalize well. For example, in the case of fruit counting, the model learned explicitly to count (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017). In the banana leaf classification problem (Amara, Bouaziz, & Algergawy, 2017), the model was robust under challenging conditions such as illumination, complex background, different resolution, size and orientation of the images. Also in the fruits counting papers (Chen, et al., 2017), (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017), the models were robust to occlusion, variation, illumination and scale. The same detection frameworks could be used for a variety of circular fruits such as peaches, citrus, mangoes etc. As another example, a key feature of the DeepAnomaly model was the ability to detect unknown objects/anomalies and not just a set of predefined objects, exploiting the homogeneous characteristics of an agricultural field to detect distant, heavy occluded and unknown objects (Christiansen, Nielsen, Steen, Jørgensen, & Karstoft, 2016). Moreover, in the 8 papers mentioned in Section 4.10 where different datasets were used for testing, the performance of the model was generally high, with only small reductions in performance in comparison with the performance when using the same dataset for training and testing. Although DL takes longer time to train than other traditional approaches (e.g. SVM, RF), its testing time efficiency is quite fast. For example, in detecting obstacles and anomaly (Christiansen, Nielsen, Steen, Jørgensen, & Karstoft, 2016), the model took much longer to train, but after it did, its testing time was less than the one of SVM and KNN. Besides, if we take into account the time needed to manually design filters and extract features, “the time used on annotating images and training the CNN becomes almost negligible” (Sørensen, Rasmussen, Nielsen, & Jørgensen, 2017). Another advantage of DL is the possibility to develop simulated datasets to train the model, which could be properly designed in order to solve real-world problems. For example, in the issue of detecting weeds and maize in fields (Dyrmann, Mortensen, Midtiby, & Jørgensen, 2016), the authors overcame the plant foliage overlapping problem by simulating top-down images of overlapping plants on soil background. The trained network was then capable of distinguish weeds from maize even in overlapping conditions. 5.3 Disadvantages and Limitations of Deep Learning A considerable drawback and barrier in the use of DL is the need of large datasets, which would serve as the input during the training procedure. In spite of data augmentation techniques which augment some dataset with label-preserving transformations, in reality at least some hundreds of images are required, depending on the complexity of the problem under study (i.e. number of classes, precision required etc.). For example, the authors in (Mohanty, Hughes, & Salathé, 2016) and (Sa, et al., 2016) commented that a more diverse set of training data was needed to improve CA. A big problem with many datasets is the low variation among the different classes (Yalcin, 2017 ), as discussed in Section 4.3, or the existence of noise, in the form of low resolution, inaccuracy of sensory equipment (Song, et al., 2016), crops’ occlusions, plants overlapping and clustering, and others. As data annotation is a necessary operation in the large majority of cases, some tasks are more complex and there is a need for experts (who might be difficult to involve) in order to annotate input images. As mentioned in (Amara, Bouaziz, & Algergawy, 2017), there is a limited availability of resources and expertise on banana pathology worldwide. In some cases, experts or volunteers are susceptible to errors during data labeling, especially when this is a challenging task e.g. fruit count (Chen, et al., 2017), (Bargoti & Underwood, 2016) or to determine if images contain weeds or not (Sørensen, Rasmussen, Nielsen, & Jørgensen, 2017), (Dyrmann, Jørgensen, & Midtiby, 2017). Another limitation is the fact that the DL models can learn some problem particularly well, even generalize in some aspects as mentioned in Section 5.2, but they cannot generalize beyond the “boundaries of the dataset’s expressiveness”. For example, classification of single leaves, facing up, on a homogeneous background is performed in (Mohanty, Hughes, & Salathé, 2016). A real world application should be able to classify images of a disease as it presents itself directly on the plant. Many diseases do not present themselves on the upper side of leaves only. As another example, plant recognition in (Lee, Chan, Wilkin, & Remagnino, 2015) was noticeably affected by environmental factors such as wrinkled surface and insect damages. The model for counting tomatoes in (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017) could count ripe and half-ripe fruits, however, “it failed to count green fruits because it was not trained for this purpose”. If an object size in a testing image was significantly less than that of a training set, the model missed the detection in (Sa, et al., 2016). Difficulty in detecting heavily occluded and distant objects was observed in (Christiansen, Nielsen, Steen, Jørgensen, & Karstoft, 2016). Occlusion was a serious issue also in (Hall, McCool, Dayoub, Sunderhauf, & Upcroft, 2015). A general issue in computer vision, not only in DL, is that data pre-processing is sometimes a necessary and time-consuming task, especially when satellite or aerial photos are involved, as we saw in Section 4.4. A problem with hyperspectral data is their high dimensionality and limited training samples (Chen, Lin, Zhao, Wang, & Gu, 2014). Moreover, sometimes the existing datasets do not describe completely the problem they target (Song, et al., 2016). As an example, for estimating corn yield (Kuwata & Shibasaki, 2015), it was necessary to consider also external factors other than the weather by inputting cultivation information such as fertilization and irrigation. Finally, in the domain of agriculture, there do not exist many publicly available datasets for researchers to work with, and in many cases, researchers need to develop their own sets of images. This could require many hours or days of work. 5.4 Future of Deep Learning in Agriculture Observing Appendix I, which lists various existing applications of computer vision in agriculture, we can see that only the problems of land cover classification, crop type estimation, crop phenology, weed detection and fruit grading have been approximated using DL. It is interesting to see how DL would behave also in other agricultural-related problems listed in Appendix I, such as seeds identification, soil and leaf nitrogen content, irrigation, plants’ water stress detection, water erosion assessment, pest detection, herbicide use, identification of contaminants, diseases or defects on food, crop hail damage and greenhouse monitoring. Intuitively, since many of the aforementioned research areas employ data analysis techniques (see Appendix I) with similar concepts and comparable performance to DL (i.e. linear and logistic regression, SVM, KNN, K- means clustering, Wavelet-based filtering, Fourier transform) (Singh, Ganapathysubramanian, Singh, & Sarkar, 2016), then it could be worth to examine the applicability of DL on these problems too. Other possible application areas could be the use of aerial imagery (i.e. by means of drones) to monitor the effectiveness of the seeding process, to increase the quality of wine production by harvesting grapes at the right moment for best maturity levels, to monitor animals and their movements to consider their overall welfare and identify possible diseases, and many other scenarios where computer vision is involved. In spite of the limited availability of open datasets in agriculture, In Appendix III, we list some of the most popular, free to download datasets available on the web, which could be used by researchers to start testing their DL architectures. These datasets could be used to pre-train DL models and then adapt them to more specific future agricultural challenges. In addition to these datasets, remote sensing data containing multi-temporal, multi-spectral and multi-source images that could be used in problems related to land and crop cover classification are available from satellites such as MERIS, MODIS, AVHRR, RapidEye, Sentinel, Landsat etc. More approaches adopting LSTM or other RNN models are expected in the future, exploiting the time dimension to perform higher performance classification or prediction. An example application could be to estimate the growth of plants, trees or even animals based on previous consecutive observations, to predict their yield, assess their water needs or avoid diseases from occurring. These models could find applicability in environmental informatics too, for understanding climatic change, predicting weather conditions and phenomena, estimating the environmental impact of various physical or artificial processes (Kamilaris, Assumpcio, Blasi, Torrellas, & Prenafeta-Boldú, 2017) etc. Related work under study involved up to a five-unit LSTM model (Minh, et al., 2017). We expect in the future to see more layers stacked together in order to build more complex LSTM architectures (Ienco, Gaetano, Dupaquier, & Maurel, 2017). We also believe that datasets with increasing temporal sequence length will appear, which could improve the performance of LSTM (Rußwurm & Körner, 2017). Moreover, more complex architectures would appear, combining various DL models and classifiers together, or combining hand-crafted features with automatic features extracted by using various techniques, fused together to improve the overall outcome, similar to what performed in (Hall, McCool, Dayoub, Sunderhauf, & Upcroft, 2015) and (Rebetez, J., et al., 2016). Researchers are expected to test their models using more general and realistic dataset, demonstrating the ability of the models to generalize to various real-world situations. A combination of popular performance metrics, such as the ones mentioned in Table 1, are essential to be adopted by the authors for comparison purposes. It would be desirable if researchers made their datasets publicly available, for use also by the general research community. Finally, some of the solutions discussed in the surveyed papers could have a commercial use in the near future. The approaches incorporating Faster Region-based CNN and DetectNet CNN (Bargoti & Underwood, 2016), (Chen, et al., 2017), (Rahnemoonfar & Sheppard, 2017) would be extremely useful for automatic robots that collect crops, remove weeds or for estimating the expected yields of various crops. A future application of this technique could be also in microbiology for human or animal cell counting (Chen, et al., 2017). The DRNN model controlling the daily feed intake of pigs or chicken, predicting quite accurately the required feed intake for the whole of the growing period, would be useful to farmers when deciding on a growth curve suitable for various scenarios. Following some growth patterns would have potential advantages for animal welfare in terms of leg health, without compromising the idea animals’ final weight and total feed intake requirement (Demmers T. G., et al., 2010), (Demmers T. G., Cao, Parsons, Gauss, & Wathes, 2012). 6. Conclusion In this paper, we have performed a survey of deep learning-based research efforts applied in the agricultural domain. We have identified 40 relevant papers, examining the particular area and problem they focus on, technical details of the models employed, sources of data used, pre-processing tasks and data augmentation techniques adopted, and overall performance according to the performance metrics employed by each paper. We have then compared deep learning with other existing techniques, in terms of performance. Our findings indicate that deep learning offers better performance and outperforms other popular image processing techniques. For future work, we plan to apply the general concepts and best practices of deep learning, as described through this survey, to other areas of agriculture where this modern technique has not yet been adequately used. Some of these areas have been identified in the discussion section. Our aim is that this survey would motivate more researchers to experiment with deep learning, applying it for solving various agricultural problems involving classification or prediction, related to computer vision and image analysis, or more generally to data analysis. The overall benefits of deep learning are encouraging for its further use towards smarter, more sustainable farming and more secure food production. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the reviewers, whose valuable feedback, suggestions and comments increased significantly the overall quality of this survey. This research has been supported by the P-SPHERE project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skodowska- Curie grant agreement No 665919. References Amara, J., Bouaziz, B., & Algergawy, A. (2017). A Deep Learning-based Approach for Banana Leaf Diseases Classification. (págs. 79-88). Stuttgart: BTW workshop. Bahrampour, S., Ramakrishnan, N., Schott, L., & Shah, M. (2015). Comparative study of deep learning software frameworks. arXiv preprint arXiv, 1511(06435). Bargoti, S., & Underwood, J. (2016). Deep Fruit Detection in Orchards. arXiv preprint arXiv, 1610(03677). Bastiaanssen, W., Molden, D., & Makin, I. (2000). Remote sensing for irrigated agriculture: examples from research and possible applications. Agricultural water management, 46(2), 137-155. Canziani, A., Paszke, A., & Culurciello, E. (2016). An Analysis of Deep Neural Network Models for Practical Applications. arXiv preprint arXiv, 1605(07678). Chen, S. W., Shivakumar, S. S., Dcunha, S., Das, J., Okon, E., Qu, C., & Kumar, V. (2017). Counting Apples and Oranges With Deep Learning: A Data-Driven Approach. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2(2), 781-788. Chen, Y., Lin, Z., Zhao, X., Wang, G., & Gu, Y. (2014). Deep Learning-Based Classification of Hyperspectral Data. IEEE Journal of Selected topics in applied earth observations and remote sensing, 7(6), 2094-2107. Chi, M., Plaza, A., Benediktsson, J. A., Sun, Z., Shen, J., & Zhu, Y. (2016). Big data for remote sensing: challenges and opportunities. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(11), 2207-2219. Christiansen, P., Nielsen, L. N., Steen, K. A., Jørgensen, R. N., & Karstoft, H. (2016). DeepAnomaly: Combining Background Subtraction and Deep Learning for Detecting Obstacles and Anomalies in an Agricultural Field. Sensors , 16(11), 1904. Demmers, T. G., Cao, Y., Gauss, S., Lowe, J. C., Parsons, D. J., & Wathes, C. M. (2010). Neural Predictive Control of Broiler Chicken Growth. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 43(6), 311-316. Demmers, T. G., Cao, Y., Parsons, D. J., Gauss, S., & Wathes, C. M. (2012). Simultaneous Monitoring and Control of Pig Growth and Ammonia Emissions. IX International Livestock Environment Symposium (ILES IX). Valencia, Spain: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L. J., Li, K., & Fei-Fei, L. (2009). Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. (págs. 248-255). Miami, FL, USA: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Deng, L., & Yu, D. (2014). Deep learning: methods and applications. Foundations and Trends in Signal Processing, 7(3-4), 197-387. Douarre, C., Schielein, R., Frindel, C., Gerth, S., & Rousseau, D. (2016). Deep learning based root- soil segmentation from X-ray tomography. bioRxiv, 071662. Dyrmann, M., Jørgensen, R. N., & Midtiby, H. S. (2017). RoboWeedSupport - Detection of weed locations in leaf occluded cereal crops using a fully convolutional neural network. 11th European Conference on Precision Agriculture (ECPA). Edinburgh, Scotland. Dyrmann, M., Karstoft, H., & Midtiby, H. S. (2016 ). Plant species classification using deep convolutional neural network. Biosystems Engineering, 151, 72-80. Dyrmann, M., Mortensen, A. K., Midtiby, H. S., & Jørgensen, R. N. (2016). Pixel-wise classification of weeds and crops in images by using a fully convolutional neural network. International Conference on Agricultural Engineering. Aarhus, Denmark. FAO. (2009). How to Feed the World in 2050. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Gebbers, R., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Precision agriculture and food security. Science, 327(5967), 828-831. Gers, F. A., Schmidhuber, J., & Cummins, F. (2000). Learning to forget: Continual prediction with LSTM. Neural Computation, 12(10), 2451-2471. Grinblat, G. L., Uzal, L. C., Larese, M. G., & Granitto, P. M. (2016). Deep learning for plant identification using vein morphological patterns. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 127, 418-424. Hall, D., McCool, C., Dayoub, F., Sunderhauf, N., & Upcroft, B. (2015). Evaluation of features for leaf classification in challenging conditions. Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) (págs. 797-804). Waikoloa Beach, Hawaii: IEEE. Hashem, I., Yaqoob, I., Anuar, N., Mokhtar, S., Gani, A., & Khan, S. (2015). The rise of “big data” on cloud computing: Review and open research issues. Information Systems, 47, 98-115. Ienco, D., Gaetano, R., Dupaquier, C., & Maurel, P. (2017). Land Cover Classification via Multi- temporal Spatial Data by Recurrent Neural Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04055. Ishimwe, R., Abutaleb, K., & Ahmed, F. (2014). Applications of thermal imaging in agriculture—A review. Advances in Remote Sensing, 3(3), 128. Jia, Y., Shelhamer, E., Donahue, J., Karayev, S., Long, J., Girshick, R., . . . Darrell, T. (2014). Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Multimedia (págs. 675-678). Orlando, FL, USA: ACM. Kamilaris, A., Assumpcio, A., Blasi, A. B., Torrellas, M., & Prenafeta-Boldú, F. X. (2017). Estimating the Environmental Impact of Agriculture by Means of Geospatial and Big Data Analysis: The Case of Catalonia. From Science to Society (págs. 39-48). Luxembourg: Springer. Kamilaris, A., Gao, F., Prenafeta-Boldú, F. X., & Ali, M. I. (2016). Agri-IoT: A semantic framework for Internet of Things-enabled smart farming applications. 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) (págs. 442-447). Reston, VA, USA: IEEE. Kamilaris, A., Kartakoullis, A., & Prenafeta-Boldú, F. X. (2017). A review on the practice of big data analysis in agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 143(1), 23-37. Kitzes, J., Wackernagel, M., Loh, J., Peller, A., Goldfinger, S., Cheng, D., & Tea, K. (2008). Shrink and share: humanity's present and future Ecological Footprint. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491), 467-475. Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2012). Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 1097- Kussul, N., Lavreniuk, M., Skakun, S., & Shelestov, A. (2017). Deep Learning Classification of Land Cover and Crop Types Using Remote Sensing Data. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 14(5), 778-782. Kuwata, K., & Shibasaki, R. (2015). Estimating crop yields with deep learning and remotely sensed data. (págs. 858-861). Milan, Italy: IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS). LeCun, Y., & Bengio, Y. (1995). Convolutional networks for images, speech, and time series. The handbook of brain theory and neural networks, 3361(10). LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436-444. Lee, S. H., Chan, C. S., Wilkin, P., & Remagnino, P. (2015). Deep-plant: Plant identification with convolutional neural networks. (págs. 452-456). Quebec city, Canada: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). Liaghat, S., & Balasundram, S. K. (2010). A review: The role of remote sensing in precision agriculture. American journal of agricultural and biological sciences, 5(1), 50-55. Lu, H., Fu, X., Liu, C., Li, L. G., He, Y. X., & Li, N. W. (2017). Cultivated land information extraction in UAV imagery based on deep convolutional neural network and transfer learning. Journal of Mountain Science, 14(4), 731-741. Luus, F. P., Salmon, B. P., van den Bergh, F., & Maharaj, B. T. (2015). Multiview deep learning for land-use classification. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 12(12), 2448-2452. Mandic, D. P., & Chambers, J. A. (2001). Recurrent neural networks for prediction: learning algorithms, architectures and stability. New York: John Wiley. McCool, C., Perez, T., & Upcroft, B. (2017). Mixtures of Lightweight Deep Convolutional Neural Networks: Applied to Agricultural Robotics. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2(3), 1344-1351. Milioto, A., Lottes, P., & Stachniss, C. (2017). Real-time blob-wise sugar beets vs weeds classification for monitoring fields using convolutional neural networks. Proceedings of the International Conference on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Geomatics. Bonn, Germany. Minh, D. H., Ienco, D., Gaetano, R., Lalande, N., Ndikumana, E., Osman, F., & Maurel, P. (2017). Deep Recurrent Neural Networks for mapping winter vegetation quality coverage via multi- temporal SAR Sentinel-1. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.03694. Mohanty, S. P., Hughes, D. P., & Salathé, M. (2016). Using deep learning for image-based plant disease detection. Frontiers in plant science, 7. Mortensen, A. K., Dyrmann, M., Karstoft, H., Jørgensen, R. N., & Gislum, R. (2016). Semantic segmentation of mixed crops using deep convolutional neural network. International Conference on Agricultural Engineering. Aarhus, Denmark. Najafabadi, M. M., Villanustre, F., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Seliya, N., Wald, R., & Muharemagic, E. (2015). Deep learning applications and challenges in big data analytics. Journal of Big Data, 2(1), 1. Namin, S. T., Esmaeilzadeh, M., Najafi, M., Brown, T. B., & Borevitz, J. O. (2017). Deep Phenotyping: Deep Learning For Temporal Phenotype/Genotype Classification. bioRxiv, Ozdogan, M., Yang, Y., Allez, G., & Cervantes, C. (2010). Remote sensing of irrigated agriculture: Opportunities and challenges. Remote sensing, 2(9), 2274-2304. Pan, S. J., & Yang, Q. (2010). A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering , 22(10), 1345-1359. PASCAL VOC Project. (2012). The PASCAL Visual Object Classes. Obtenido de http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk/pascal/VOC/ Potena, C., Nardi, D., & Pretto, A. (2016). Fast and accurate crop and weed identification with summarized train sets for precision agriculture. International Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (págs. 105-121). Shanghai, China: Springer, Cham. Pound, M. P., et al. (2016). Deep Machine Learning provides state-of-the-art performance in image-based plant phenotyping. bioRxiv, 053033. Rahnemoonfar, M., & Sheppard, C. (2017). Deep Count: Fruit Counting Based on Deep Simulated Learning. Sensors, 17(4), 905. Rebetez, J., et al. (2016). Augmenting a convolutional neural network with local histograms—a case study in crop classification from high-resolution UAV imagery. European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning. Bruges, Belgium. Reyes, A. K., Caicedo, J. C., & Camargo, J. E. (2015). Fine-tuning Deep Convolutional Networks for Plant Recognition. Toulouse: CLEF (Working Notes). Rußwurm, M., & Körner, M. (2017). Multi-Temporal Land Cover Classification with Long Short- Term Memory Neural Networks. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences, 42. Sa, I., Ge, Z., Dayoub, F., Upcroft, B., Perez, T., & McCool, C. (2016). Deepfruits: A fruit detection system using deep neural networks. Sensors, 16(8), 1222. Santoni, M. M., Sensuse, D. I., Arymurthy, A. M., & Fanany, M. I. (2015). Cattle Race Classification Using Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix Convolutional Neural Networks. Procedia Computer Science, 59, 493-502. Saxena, L., & Armstrong, L. (2014). A survey of image processing techniques for agriculture. Perth, Australia: Proceedings of Asian Federation for Information Technology in Agriculture, Australian Society of Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture. Schmidhuber, J. (2015). Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural networks, 61, 85- Sehgal, G., Gupta, B., Paneri, K., Singh, K., Sharma, G., & Shroff, G. (2017). Crop Planning using Stochastic Visual Optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09077. Simonyan, K., & Zisserman, A. (2014). Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv, 1409(1556). Singh, A., Ganapathysubramanian, B., Singh, A. K., & Sarkar, S. (2016). Machine Learning for High-Throughput Stress Phenotyping in Plants. Trends in Plant Science, 21(2), 110-124. Sladojevic, S., Arsenovic, M., Anderla, A., Culibrk, D., & Stefanovic, D. (2016). Deep neural networks based recognition of plant diseases by leaf image classification. Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2016. Song, X., Zhang, G., Liu, F., Li, D., Zhao, Y., & Yang, J. (2016). Modeling spatio-temporal distribution of soil moisture by deep learning-based cellular automata model. Journal of Arid Land, 8(5), 734-748. Sørensen, R. A., Rasmussen, J., Nielsen, J., & Jørgensen, R. (2017). Thistle detection using convolutional neural networks. Montpellier, France: EFITA Congress. Steen, K. A., Christiansen, P., Karstoft, H., & Jørgensen, R. N. (2016). Using Deep Learning to Challenge Safety Standard for Highly Autonomous Machines in Agriculture. Journal of Imaging, 2(1), 6. Szegedy, C., Ioffe, S., Vanhoucke, V., & Alemi, A. A. (2017). Inception-v4, Inception-ResNet and the Impact of Residual Connections on Learning. (págs. 4278-4284). AAAI. Szegedy, C., Liu, W., Jia, Y., Sermanet, P., Reed, S., Anguelov, D., & Rabinovich, A. (2015). Going deeper with convolutions. (págs. 1-9). Boston, MA, USA: IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. Teke, M., Deveci, H. S., Haliloğlu, O., Gürbüz, S. Z., & Sakarya, U. (2013). A short survey of hyperspectral remote sensing applications in agriculture. Istanbul, Turkey: 6th International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies (RAST), IEEE. Tyagi, A. C. (2016). Towards a Second Green Revolution. Irrigation and Drainage, 65(4), 388- Waga, D., & Rabah, K. (2014). Environmental conditions’ big data management and cloud computing analytics for sustainable agriculture. World Journal of Computer Application and Technology, 2(3), 73-81. Wan, J., Wang, D., Hoi, S. C., Wu, P., Zhu, J., Zhang, Y., & Li, J. (2014). Deep learning for content-based image retrieval: A comprehensive study. (págs. 157-166). Orlando, FL: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Multimedia, ACM. Weber, R. H., & Weber, R. (2010). Internet of Things (Vol. 12). New York, NY, USA: Springer. Xinshao, W., & Cheng, C. (2015). Weed seeds classification based on PCANet deep learning baseline. (págs. 408-415). IEEE Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA). Yalcin, H. (2017 ). Plant phenology recognition using deep learning: Deep-Pheno. 6th International Conference on Agro-Geoinformatics. Fairfax VA, USA. Appendix I: Applications of computer vision in agriculture and popular techniques used. Application in No. Remote sensing Techniques for data analysis Agriculture Hyperspectral imaging Image fusion, SVM, end-member extraction algorithm, Soil and (satellite and airborne), co-polarized phase differences (PPD), linear 1. vegetation/crop multi‐spectral imaging polarizations (HH, VV, HV), distance-based mapping (satellite), synthetic classification, decision trees, linear mixing models, aperture radar (SAR) logistic regression, ANN, NDVI Hyperspectral imaging Leaf area index 2. (airborne), multi‐spectral Linear regression analysis, NDVI and crop canopy imaging (airborne) Satellite remote sensing 3. Crop phenology Wavelet-based filtering, Fourier transforms, NDVI (general) Light Detection and Crop height, Ranging (LIDAR), estimation of Linear and exponential regression analysis, linear hyperspectral and multi- 4. yields, fertilizers' polarizations (VV), wavelet-based filtering, vegetation spectral imaging, SAR, effect and indices (NDVI, ICWSI), ANN red-edge camera, biomass thermal infrared Satellite remote sensing, Stepwise discriminate analysis (DISCRIM) feature (hyperspectral and multi- extraction, linear regression analysis, co-polarized phase 5. Crop monitoring spectral imaging), NIR differences (PPD), linear polarizations (HH, VV, HV, RR camera, SAR and RL), classification and regression tree analysis Identification of Remote sensing in seeds and general, cameras and Principal component analysis, feature extraction, linear reorganization of photo-detectors, regression analysis species hyperspectral imaging Soil and leaf Hyperspectral and multi- nitrogen content Linear and exponential regression analysis 7. spectral imaging, thermal and treatment, imaging salinity detection Satellite remote sensing (hyperspectral and multi- Image classification techniques (unsupervised Irrigation 8. spectral imaging), red- clustering, density slicing with thresholds), decision edge camera, thermal trees, linear regression analysis, NDVI infrared Satellite remote sensing Plants water (hyperspectral and multi- stress detection spectral imaging, radar Fraunhofer Line Depth (FLD) principle, linear regression and drought images), thermal analysis, NDVI conditions imaging, NIR camera, red-edge camera Satellite remote sensing Interferometric SAR image processing, linear and Water erosion (optical and radar 10. exponential regression analysis, contour tracing, linear assessment images), SAR, NIR polarizations (HH, VV) camera Hyperspectral and multi- Pest detection Image processing using sample imagery, linear and spectral imaging, 11. and exponential regression analysis, statistical analysis, microwave remote management CEM nonlinear signal processing, NDVI sensing, thermal camera Pixel classification based on k-means clustering and Remote sensing in Bayes classifier, feature extraction techniques with FFT general, optical cameras and GLCM, wavelet-based classification and Gabor 12. Weed detection and photo-detectors, filtering, genetic algorithms, fuzzy techniques, artificial hyperspectral and multi- neural networks, erosion and dilation segmentation, spectral imaging logistic regression, edge detection, color detection, principal component analysis Remote sensing in general, optical cameras 13. Herbicide Fuzzy techniques, discriminant analysis and photo-detectors Optical cameras and K-means clustering, image fusion, color histogram photo-detectors, techniques, machine learning (esp. SVM), Bayesian 14. Fruit grading monochrome images discriminant analysis, Bayes filtering, linear discriminant with different analysis illuminations 3D vision, invariance, pattern recognition and image Packaged food X-ray imaging (or modality, multivariate image analysis with principal and food transmitted light), CCD component analysis, K-mean clustering, SVM, linear products – cameras, monochrome discriminant analysis, classification trees, K-nearest identification of images with different 15. neighbors, decision trees, fusion, feature extraction contaminants, illuminations, thermal techniques with FFT, standard Bayesian discriminant diseases or cameras, multi-spectral analysis, feature analysis, color, shape and geometric defects, bruise and hyperspectral NIR- features using discrimination analysis, pulsed-phase detection based imaging thermography Multi-spectral imaging, Crop hail Linear and exponential regression analysis, 16. polarimetric radar damage unsupervised image classification imagery Agricultural Satellite remote sensing 17. expansion and Wavelet-based filtering in general intensification Greenhouse Optical and thermal Linear and exponential regression analysis, monitoring cameras unsupervised classification, NDVI, IR thermography Appendix II: Applications of deep learning in agriculture. Data for Perfor Variation DL Data Value of Comparison Agri Problem Classes and FW Data Pre- Training mance No. Data Used among Model augmenta Metric with other Ref. Area Description Labels Used Processing vs. Metric Classes Used tion Used technique Testing Used Feature extraction based on Histograms of Curvature Same. over Scale (condition Feature Flavia dataset, (HoCS), (Hall, variations extraction consisting of 1,907 shape and McCool, Author- Classify applied in (shape and leaf images of 32 32 classes: 32 statistical Dayoub, defined leaves of testing: statistical 97.3% 1. species with at Different plant Caffe features, use N/A CA Sunderha N/A CNN + translations, ±0.6% features) and different least 50 images species RF of normalized uf, & scaling, RF classifier plant species per species and at excessive Upcroft, classifier rotations, (91.2% ± most 77 images. green (NExG) 2015) shading and 1.6%) vegetative occlusions) index, white border doubling image size, segmentation Cropping, square around Affine the leaves to (Sladojevi 13 different 15 classes: transform highlight c, types of Authors-created Plant diseases (translation, region of Better results Arsenovic plant database (13), healthy rotation), CaffeNet 2. Caffe interest, Same CA than SVM (no , Anderla, N/A 96.30% containing 4,483 leaves (1) and perspective diseases out CNN resized to more details) Culibrk, & images. background transform, of healthy 256×256 pix, Stefanovi images (1) and image leaves dupl. image c, 2016) rotations. removal Leaf disease detection Leaf classification Same. Also Substantial PlantVillage public Resized to tested on a margin in dataset of 54,306 256×256 pix., dataset of standard (Mohanty, Identify 14 images of 38 class labels segmentation, downloaded benchmarks Hughes, AlexNet, crop species diseased and 3. as crop- N/A Caffe background N/A images F1 with & GoogleN 0.9935 healthy plant and 26 disease pairs et CNNs Information from Bing approaches Salathé, leaves collected diseases removal, fixed Image using hand- 2016) under controlled color casts Search and engineered conditions. IPM Images features Dataset of 3,700 Methods 3 classes: (Amara, Classify images of banana Resized to using hand- 96+% healthy, Bouaziz, banana diseases obtained deeplear 60x60 pix., crafted LeNet (CA), 4. black sigatoka N/A N/A Same CA, F1 & from the ning4j converted to features not leaves’ CNN 0.968 and black Algergaw PlantVillage grayscale (F1) generalize diseases speckle y, 2017) dataset. well 13 different A mixed land-cover vegetation site Identify 13 Hybrid of classes over Kennedy PCA, different (Dataset 1), 9 Space Center autoenc land-cover land cover Develop (Chen, (KSC), FL, USA Some bands 1% more oder classes in classes trees ed by Lin, Zhao, 5. (Dataset 1), and N/A removed due N/A Same CA precise than (AE), 98.70% (Dataset 2): the Wang, & KSC and 9 an urban site over and to noise RBF-SVM Soil, meadow, authors Gu, 2014) different the city of Pavia, logistic water, classes in regressi Italy (Dataset 2). shadows, Pavia Hyperspectral on different datasets. materials 21 land-use From RGB to UC Merced land- classes: High relevance HSV (hue- Identify 21 use data set. Views Agricultural, between saturation- Unsupervised (Luus, land-use Author- Aerial ortho- flipped airplane, medium density value) color feature Salmon, defined classes imagery with a horizontally sports, beach, and dense model, learning van den CNN + 0.3048-m pixel Theano or vertically Same 6. containing a CA 93.48% buildings, residential, as multiview resized to (UFL): 82- Bergh, & resolution. Dataset with a variety of model residential, well as between 96×96 pix., 90% Maharaj, compiled from a probability spatial averaging forest, freeway, buildings and creation of SIFT: 85% 2015) selection of 100 of 0.5 patterns harbor, parking storage tanks multiscale images/class. lot, river etc. views Plant disease detection Land cover classification Orthorectificati on, image Images from UAV The cultivated Extract matching, at the areas land samples information 2 classes: linear land Author- Pengzhou County and part of (Lu, et al., 7. about Cultivated vs. N/A elimination, N/A Same CA N/A defined 88-91% and Guanghan forest land 2017) non-cultivated CNN correct cultivated County, Sichuan samples were distortion, land Province, China. easily confused zoomed to 40×40 pix. First dataset 11 classes Multiresolution generated using a (dataset 1), segmentation First time series of 9 classes technique, RF and SVM Dataset: Pléiades VHSR (dataset 2). feature 75.34% (best of both): Tree Crops, (Ienco, One-unit (CA), images at THAU Land cover extraction, First Dataset: Land cover Summer crops Gaetano, LSTM + 0.7463 Basin. Second classes such pixel-wise 74.20% (CA), classification and Truck Keras/ Dupaquie RFF, (F1) 8. dataset generated as trees, crops, multi-temporal N/A Same CA, F1 0.7158 (F1) Farming were One-unit Theano Second r, & considering from an annual forests, water, linear Second Dataset: classes highly Maurel, LSTM + time series time series of 23 soils, urban interpolation, Dataset: 84.61% mixed SVM 2017) Landsat 8 images areas, various 83.82% (CA), (CA), acquired in 2014 grasslands, radiometric 0.8441 0.8274 (F1) (F1) above Reunion etc. (Image indices Island. object or pixel) calculated Calibration, 11 classes: multi-looking, Classificatio water, forest, speckle 19 multi-temporal n of crops grassland, filtering (3×3 (Kussul, scenes acquired wheat, bare land, General Develop window with Multilayer Lavreniuk by Landsat-8 and Author- maize, wheat, maize, confusion ed by Refined Lee perceptron: , Skakun, 9. Sentinel-1A RS N/A Same CA defined 94.60% rapeseed, between maize the algorithm), 92.7%, & soybeans satellites from a CNN cereals, sugar and soybeans authors terrain RF: 88% Shelestov sunflower test site in beet, correction, , 2017) and sugar Ukraine. sunflowers and segmentation, beet soybeans. restoration of missing data Crop type classification 36 plots at Foulum Rotations 0, Research Center, Coarse features (Mortens Classificatio 7 classes: oil Resized to 90, 180 and Denmark (radish leafs and en, n of crops oil radish, barley, 1600x1600 270 Adapted containing oil soil) were Develop Dyrmann, radish, weed, stump, pix. centered degrees, version 79% radish as a catch predicted quite ed by Karstoft, 10. barley, soil, equipment on the sample flipped Same CA, IoU N/A of (CA), crop and amounts well. Finer the Jørgense 0.66 (IoU) and unknown VGG16 areas, division diagonally seeded of barley, grass, features (barley, authors n, & (pixel of the CNN into 400x400 and same grass, weed weed and stump. grass or stump) Gislum, image) pix. patches set of and stump 352 patches in not so much. 2016) rotations total. 19 classes: Some classes A raster dataset of corn, meadow, represent 26 SENTINEL 2A asparagus, distinct CNN: 59.9% images, acquired Crop type rape, hop, cultivated crops, (CA), 0.236 (Rußwur 76.2% between 2015 Three- classification summer oats, others (such as TensorFl Atmospherical (F1) m & (CA), 11. 2016 at Munich N/A Same CA, F1 unit SVM: 31.7 winter spelt, meadow, fallow, ow ly corrected 0.558 Körner, considering Germany. LSTM (F1) fallow, wheat, triticale, wheat, (CA), 84.8% 2017) time series Shortwave infrared barley, winter and rye) are 0.317 (F1) 1 and 2 bands rye, beans and botanically were selected. others related. Aerial images of experimental farm CNN: 0.83 fields issued from (experiment CNN + 0.90 Crop type a series of 23 classes: 22 Lin and Simplex 0), 0.70 HistNN (experime (Rebetez, classification experiments different crops have very Image (experiment 1) (using nt 0), Keras Same J., et al., 12. N/A F1 conducted by the plus soil (pixel similar RGB segmentation 0.73 HistNN: 0.86 from UAV 2016) histogram (experime Swiss of the image) histograms (experiment imagery s) nt 1) Confederation’s 0), 0.71 Agroscope (experiment 1) research center. LifeCLEF 2015 20% worse Recognize 7 plant dataset, 1,000 classes: Images of than local views of (Reyes, which has 91,759 Species that flowers and leaf descriptors to different Caicedo, images distributed include trees, scans offer represent AlexNet Caffe Same & 13.. plants: entire N/A N/A LC 48.60% in 13,887 plant herbs, and higher accuracy images and CNN Camargo, plant, observations. ferns, among than the rest of KNN, dense 2015) branch, Each observation others. the views SIFT and a flower, fruit, captures the Gaussian Plant recognition appearance of the Mixture Model leaf, stem plant from various and scans points of view: entire plant, leaf branch, fruit, stem scan, flower. The first dataset 2 classes: contains 2,500 Prediction if a annotated images root tip is Image of whole root present or not cropping at 98.4% Root and systems. The (first dataset) annotated Sparse coding (first shoot feature (Pound, Author- second hand- 5 classes: Leaf locations approach dataset) 14. identification N/A Caffe N/A Same CA M. P., et defined annotated 1,664 tips and bases, 128x128 pix., using SIFT + 97.3% CNN al., 2016) and images of wheat ear tips and resized to (second SVM: 80-90% localisation plants, labeling bases, and 64x64 for use dataset) leaf tips, leaf negative in the network bases, ear tips, (second and ear bases. dataset) Foreground MalayaKew (MK) 44 classes: pixels Leaf Dataset Species such extracted (Lee, which consists of Recognize as acutissima, using HSV Rotation in Chan, 44 classes, SVM: 95.1%, AlexNet 15. 44 different macranthera, N/A Caffe color space, 7 different Same CA Wilkin, & 99.60% ANN: 58% collected at the CNN rubra, robur f. image orientations Remagni plant species Royal Botanic purpurascens cropping no, 2015) Gardens, Kew, etc. within leaf England. area 866 leaf images provided by INTA At soybean, Identify Argentina. Dataset informative 3 classes: Penalized plants from divided into three regions are in (Grinblat, Legume Vein Discriminant leaf vein classes: 422 the central vein. Uzal, Author- species white segmentation, Analysis images For white and Pylearn2 Same Larese, & 16. patterns of N/A CA defined 96.90% bean, central patch (PDA): 95.1% correspond to red bean, outer Granitto, CNN white, soya red bean and extraction SVM and RF soybean leaves, and smaller 2016) and red soybean slightly worse 272 to red bean veins are also beans leaves and 172 to relevant. white bean leaves. Appearances change very gradually and it Images are Dataset collected 9 classes: is challenging to divided into through TARBIL Different Hand crafted distinguish large Agro-informatics growth stages feature Classify images falling patches and Research Center of plants, descriptors phenological into the growing features are 73.76 – of ITU, for which starting from (GLCM and stages of durations that Develop extracted 87.14 over a thousand plowing to HOG) through several are in the middle ed by Image for each (Yalcin, AlexNet (CA), 17. agrostations are cropping, for Same CA, F1 a Naïve- of two the segmentation patch. 0.7417 – 2017 ) types of CNN placed throughout the plants Bayes 0.8728 successive authors 227x227 plants purely Turkey. Different wheat, barley, classifier: (F1) stages. Some pix. patches based on the images of various lentil, cotton, 68.97 – 82.41 plants from are carved visual data plants, at different pepper and (CA), 0.6931 different classes from the phenological corn. (image – 0.8226 (F1) have original stages. segment) similar color and images texture distributions Dataset composed Camera of sequences of Plants change in 4 classes: 4 distortion images captured size rapidly different removal, color Image (Namin, Classify the from the plants in during their accessions of correction, rotations by Hand crafted Esmaeilz phenotyping different days growth, the Arabidopsis: temporal 90, 180 and feature adeh, of while they grow, decomposed Keras/ CNN+ 18. Genotype matching, 270 Same CA descriptors + Najafi, 93% successive top- images from the Theano Arabidopsis LSTM LSTM: 68% states SF-2, plant degrees Brown, & view images of plant sequences in four CNN: 76.8% CVI, Landsberg segmentation around its Borevitz, different are not accessions (Ler) and through the center 2017) accessions of sufficiently Columbia (Col) GrabCut Arabidopsis consistent algorithm thaliana. Author- (Douarre, 0.23 defined Soil/root Simulated Schielein, (simulati Soil images 2 classes: Root CNN Identify roots contrast is MatCon Image roots added Frindel, on) coming from X-ray or soil (pixel of Same N/A 19. with QM sometimes very vNet segmentation to soil Gerth, & from soils 0.57 tomography. the image) SVM for low images Roussea (real classific roots) u, 2016) ation Segmentation Plant phenology recognition of root and soil Enhanced Corn yields from Vegetation 2001 to 2010 in Index (EVI), Estimate Illinois U.S., hard threshold Support (Kuwata Crop yield Author- corn yield of downloaded from algorithm, Vector & 20. index (scalar N/A Caffe N/A Same RMSE defined 6.298 Climate Research Wavelet Regression Shibasaki county level value) CNN Unit (CRU), plus transformation (SVR): 8.204 , 2015) in U.S. MODIS Enhanced for detecting Vegetation Index. crop phenology Intensity image gen., Sentinel-1 dataset “Low” class radiometrical including 13 intersects the calibration, acquisitions in 5 classes: Mapping temporal profiles temporal TOPS mode from Estimations of Five-unit winter of all the other filtering for RF and SVM October 2016 to the quality of LSTM, vegetation classes multiple noise 99.05% February 2017, vegetative Keras/ (best of both): (Minh, et Gated times. A reduction, Same 21. quality N/A CA, F1 (CA), with a temporal development Theano 91.77% (CA), al., 2017) Recurre misclassification orthorectificati 0.99 (F1) coverage baseline of 12 as bare soil, 0.9179 (F1) nt Unit rate exists on into map considering days. Dual- very low, low, (GRU) between the coordinates, time series polarization average, high “low” and “bare transformed to (VV+VH) data in soil” classes logarithm 26 images. scale, normalized Generated 91% synthetic (RFC) 128x128 1.16 pix. images Trained (RMSE) to train the Modified Predict on real Estimated Blurred entirely on (Rahnem 24,000 synthetic network, ABT: 66.16% Inceptio images, number of RFC, number of TensorFl synthetic synthetic oonfar & 22. images produced N/A colored (RFC), 13.56 n- 93% tomato fruits ow images by a data and Sheppard tomatoes in RMSE (RFC) by the authors. ResNet circles to (RMSE) (scalar value) Gaussian filter tested on , 2017) the images 2.52 CNN simulate real data (RMSE) background on and tomato synthetic plant/crops. images Fruit counting Crop yield estimation High variation in CA. For orange, Image Training set dataset has high CNN segmentation partitioned 0.968 Map from 71 1280×960 occlusion, depth (blob (RFC), for easier data into 100 Same (but Best texture- input images orange images Number of variation, and detection 13.8 (L2) annotation by randomly different based of apples RFC, (day time) and 21 orange or uncontrolled and (Chen, et for 23. Caffe users, cropped trees used regression counting) 1920×1200 apple apple fruits illumination. For oranges al., 2017) and oranges L2 creation of and flipped in training model: 0.682 + Linear 0.913 images (night (scalar value) apples, data set to total fruit bounding 320×240 and testing) (RFC) Regressi (RFC), time). has high color counts boxes around pix. sub- 10.5 (L2) on similarity image blobs images for apples between fruit/foliage Images of three Within class Flip, scale, fruit varieties: variations due to Fruit flip-scale ZF network: Faster apples (726), Sections of distance to fruit detection 0.904 and the 0.892 Region- almonds (385) and apples, illumination, fruit Image (apples) in orchards, PCA (apples) (Bargoti & based mangoes (1,154), almonds and clustering, and segmentation F1-IoU 0.908 Caffe augmentati Same 0.876 Underwo 24. including CNN captured at mangoes at the camera view- for easier data (mango) (20) on (mango) od, 2016) with mangoes, 0.775 orchards in image point. Almonds annotation VGG16 technique 0.726 almonds and (almonds) Victoria and (bounding box) similar in color model presented (almonds) apples Queensland, and texture to in AlexNet Australia. the foliage Variations to Early/late camera setup, fusion Same time and techniques for (authors Conditional Faster Sections of Detection of 122 images locations of data combining the demonstrat Random Field Region- sweet red sweet obtained from two acquisition. classification e by using a to model color based peppers and F1-IoU (Sa, et modalities: color Time for data Caffe info from color small and visual 25. pepper and CNN N/A 0.838 rock melons on al., 2016) (40) (RGB) and Near- collection is day and NIR dataset that texture with rock melon the image Infrared (NIR). and night, sites VGG16 imagery, the model features: fruits (bounding box) are different. model bounding box can 0.807 Varied fruit segmentation, generalize) ripeness. pairwise IoU 437 images from Identify if a Resized to Various Testing in (Steen, 99.9% in Identify ISO authors' barrel-shaped 114×114 pix., rotations at different Christians row barrel- CA-IoU AlexNet 26. experiments and object is N/A Caffe bounding 13 scales, fields (row N/A en, crops shaped CNN (50) recordings, 1,925 present in the boxes of the intensity of crops, grass Karstoft, and obstacles in positive and image object created the object mowing), 90.8% in & Obstacle detection 11,550 negative (bounding box) adapted containing Jørgense row crops grass samples. other n, 2016) mowing and grass obstacles mowing (people and animals) Detect Background data Classify each (Christian obstacles of 48 images and pixel as either sen, Local de- that are test data of 48 foreground Image Nielsen, AlexNet correlated distant, F1-IoU images from (contains a cropping, Steen, and 27. N/A Caffe N/A Same channel 0.72 annotations of human) or resized by a Jørgense heavily VGG (50) features: humans, houses, background factor of 0.75 n, & CNNs occluded 0.113 barrels, wells and (anomaly Karstoft, and mannequins. detection) 2016) unknown Image filter Same (also Similarity Manual 91 classes: extraction scaling for a between some feature Dataset of 3,980 Different Develop through PCA certain PCANet Classify 91 classes is very extraction (Xinshao images containing common ed by filters bank, range + LMC 28. weed seed high (only slight N/A CA techniques + & Cheng, 90.96% 91 types of weed weeds found in the binarization translation classifier differences in LMC 2015) types seeds. agricultural s authors and distance shape, texture, classifiers: fields histograms’ and rotation and color) 64.80% counting angle Green 22 classes: Variations with segmentation Different respect to to detect species of Classify Dataset of 10,413 lighting, green pixels, weeds and Theano- Image Local shape weed from images, taken resolution, and non-green crops at early based mirroring and color (Dyrmann crop species mainly from BBCH soil type. Some pixels Variation growth stages Lasagne and rotation features: , Karstoft, 12-16 containing species removal, Same 29. based on 22 CA of 86.2% e.g. library in 90 42.5% and & Midtiby, 22 weed and crop (Veronica, Field padding VGG16 different chamomile, for degree 12.2% 2016 ) species at early Pancy) were added to species in knotweed, Python increments respectively growth stages. very similar and make images total. cranesbill, difficult to square, chickweed and classify resized to veronica 128x128 pix. 4,500 images from 2 classes: Small variations Random flip Same (extra Color feature- (Sørense Identify Image DenseN 30. 10, 20, 30, and Whether the in some images Caffe both tests for the CA based Thistle- n, 97% cropping thistle in et CNN 50m of altitude image contains depending on horizontally case of Tool: 95% Rasmuss Identification of weeds captured by a thistle in winter the percentage and winter en, winter wheat Canon PowerShot wheat or not of thistles they vertically, barley) Nielsen, and spring G15 camera. (Heatmap of contain random & barley classes is transposing Jørgense images generated at n, 2017) the output) Crop/Weed Field Adapted Image Dataset Image up- version of (CW-FID), consists sampling to Inception- of 20 training and v3 + 299x299 pix., Feature 40 testing images. lightweigh NDVI-based Same extraction Weed A dataset of 60 2 classes: (McCool, t DCNN + vegetation (different (shape and segmentatio top-down field carrot plants TensorFl Perez, & set of K 31. N/A masks, N/A carrot fields CA statistical 93.90% images of a and weeds lightweigh ow Upcroft, n for robotic extracting used for features) and t models common culture (image region) 2017) platforms regions based testing) RF classifier: as a (organic carrots) on a sliding 85.9% mixture with the presence model window on the of intra-row and (MixDCN color image close-to-crop N) weeds. Different 1,427 images from Detect single field used winter wheat Automating weed instances for testing. Based on fields, of which (Dyrmann 0.64 weed IoU in images of This field DetectNet 18,541 weeds Large parts of Develop , (IoU), detection in P- IoU cereal fields Resized to has a CNN have been the weeds ed by Jørgense 86.6% (bounding box). 1224×1024 severe N/A 32. color images (which is N/A (50) annotated, overlap with the n, & (P- IoU), A coverage based on pix. degree of despite R-IoU collected using a wheat plants authors Midtiby, 46.3% GoogLeN map is occlusion heavy leaf (50) camera mounted (R-IoU) 2017) et CNN) produced. compared occlusion on an all-terrain to the vehicle. others Separated vegetation/ background Same (also based on generalized Detecting Dataset 1,969 RGB+NIR Identify if an NDVI, binary to a second A: 97% sugar beet images captured image patch mask to dataset (Milioto, (P), 98% plants and Author- 64 even using a JAI belongs to TensorFl describe produced 2- Lottes, & (R) 33. weeds in the N/A P, R N/A defined camera in nadir weed or sugar ow vegetation, weeks after, Dataset Stachniss rotations CNN field based view placed on a beet (image blob at a more B: 99% , 2017) on image UAV. region) segmentation, advanced (P), 89% data resized to growth (R) 64x64 pix., stage) normalized and centered 1,600 4-channels Pixel-wise RGB+NIR images Same (also segmentation captured before generalized between Feature Detecting (700 images) and Identifies if a to a second 98% green extraction and after (900 images) blob belongs to dataset (Potena, (Dataset vegetation (shape and Author- classifying a 4-week period, sugar beet TensorFl produced 4- Nardi, & A), 34. N/A and soil based N/A CA statistical defined provided by a crop, weeds or ow weeks after, Pretto, sugar beet 59.4% on NDVI and features) and CNN multispectral JAI soil (image at a more (Dataset 2016) plants and light CNN, RF classifier: camera mounted blob) advanced B) weeds unsupervised 95% on a BOSCH growth dataset Bonirob farm stage) summariz. robot. Crop/weed detection and classification Random scaling from Simulated top- 80 to 100% down images of of original overlapping plants size, (Dyrmann Detecting 94% CA, on soil background Identifies if an Tested on random , Adapted and 0.71 IoU A total of 301 image patch Develop real images Image rotations in Mortense version (crops), classifying CA, images of soil and belongs to ed by while 35. N/A cropping in one degree 0.70 IoU N/A n, of weeds and 8,430 images of weed, soil or the trained on IoU (weeds) VGG16 800x800 pix. increments, Midtiby, & segmented plants. maize crop authors simulated maize in 0.93 IoU varied hue, Jørgense CNN The plants cover (image pixel) ones (soil) fields saturation n, 2016) 23 different weed and species and intensity, maize. random shadows Geospatial interpolation for creation of Deep soil moisture belief content maps, Soil data collected Multi-layer network- Predict the multivariate from an irrigated Percentage of Develop perceptron based soil moisture geostatistical corn field (an area soil moisture ed by MCA (MLP- (Song, et macrosc 36. content over N/A approach for N/A Same RMSE 6.77 of 22 sq. km) in content (SMC) the MCA): 18% al., 2016) opic estimating an irrigated the Zhangye oasis, (scalar value) cellular authors reduction in thematic soil corn field Northwest China. automat RMSE maps, maps a (DBN- converted to MCA) TIFF, resampled to 10-m res. Prediction of soil moisture content GLCM 5 classes: features Practical and CNN without Cattle races, extraction (Santoni, accurate extra inputs: Bali Deep (contrast, Sensuse, cattle 1,300 images 89.68% Onggole or Learning energy and Arymurth GLCM – 37. identification collected by the N/A N/A Same CA 93.76% Gaussian Pasuruan, CNN Matlab homogeneity), y, & authors. Mixture from 5 Aceh Toolbox saliency maps Fanany, Model different Madura and to accelerate 2015) (GMM): 90% races Pesisir feature extraction 160 pigs, housed in two climate controlled rooms, 0.002 Tested on four pens/room, 10 (MSE) on (Demmer different pigs/pen. same s T. G., Estimation of Develop rooms of Predict Ammonia, ambient dataset), Cao, First- MSE, the weight of ed by pigs than and indoor air N/A 10% N/A Parsons, 38. growth of N/A order N/A pigs (scalar the the ones MRE temperature and DRNN (MRE) in Gauss, & pigs value) authors which were humidity, feed relation to Wathes, used for dosage and a 2012) training ventilation controller measured at 6- minute intervals. Collecting data from 8 rooms, Tested on 0.02 each room different (MSE), Control of housing 262 Estimation of Develop rooms of 1.8% (Demmer First- the growth of broilers, the weight of ed by chicken MSE, 39. N/A N/A N/A (MRE) in N/A s T. G., et order measuring bird chicken (scalar the than the broiler MRE DRNN relation to al., 2010) weight, feed value) authors ones which chickens amount, light were used controller intensity and for training relative humidity. Animal research 78% (Temperat Syngenta Crop Predicted ure), 73% Predict Challenge 2016 values of (Precipitati weather dataset, containing N- temperature, (Sehgal, on), 2.8% based on 6,490 sub-regions precipitation Keras Same (Solar N/A et al., 40. N/A LSTM N/A N/A RMSE, with three weather previous Radiation) and solar 2017) MRE condition attributes year’s N-RMSE, radiation from the years conditions 1-3% (scalar value) 2000 to 2015. MRE in all categories Weather prediction Appendix III: Publicly-available datasets related to agriculture. No. Organization/Dataset Description of dataset Source 1. Image-Net Dataset Images of various plants (trees, vegetables, flowers) http://image-net.org/explore?wnid=n07707451 ImageNet Large Scale Visual http://image-net.org/challenges/LSVRC/2017/#det 2. Images that allow object localization and detection Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC) University of Arcansas, Plants https://plants.uaex.edu/herbicide/ 3. Herbicide injury image database Dataset http://www.uaex.edu/yard-garden/resource-library/diseases/ 4. EPFL, Plant Village Dataset Images of various crops and their diseases https://www.plantvillage.org/en/crops Leaves from 185 tree species from the Northeastern http://leafsnap.com/dataset/ 5. Leafsnap Dataset United States. 6. LifeCLEF Dataset Identity, geographic distribution and uses of plants http://www.imageclef.org/2014/lifeclef/plant PASCAL Visual Object Classes Images of various animals (birds, cats, cows, dogs, http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk/pascal/VOC/ Dataset horses, sheep etc.) Africa Soil Information Service http://africasoils.net/services/data/ 8. Continent-wide digital soil maps for sub-Saharan Africa (AFSIS) dataset 9. UC Merced Land Use Dataset A 21 class land use image dataset http://vision.ucmerced.edu/datasets/landuse.html http://web.fsktm.um.edu.my/~cschan/downloads_MKLeaf_d 10. MalayaKew Dataset Scan-like images of leaves from 44 species classes. ataset.html https://github.com/cwfid/dataset Field images, vegetation segmentation masks and 11. Crop/Weed Field Image Dataset https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/58a0/9b1351ddb447e6abd crop/weed plant type annotations. ede7233a4794d538155.pdf University of Bonn Sugar beets dataset for plant classification as well as http://www.ipb.uni-bonn.de/data/ Photogrammetry, IGG localization and mapping. 13. Flavia leaf dataset Leaf images of 32 plants. http://flavia.sourceforge.net/ 2,267 of corn hybrids in 2,122 of locations between https://www.ideaconnection.com/syngenta-crop- 14. Syngenta Crop Challenge 2017 2008 and 2016, together with weather and soil challenge/challenge.php conditions
Statistics – arXiv (Cornell University)
Published: Jul 31, 2018
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.