Submitted:
20 March 2024
Posted:
20 March 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- We propose a lightweight one-stage YOLOv8 model, referred to as the Detail and Multi-scale YOLO Network (DM-YOLO), built upon YOLOv8 for real-time cucumber pest and disease identification. Utilizing the MultiCat module by merging features of different scales, the model's detection capability for pests and diseases of varying sizes on cucumbers is enhanced. We introduced the C2fe module, a modification based on C2f, as a new feature fusion method aiming to more effectively combine multi-scale features. With an attention mechanism based on adaptive average pooling, we constructed a new module named AD-C2f, which intensifies the model's focus on crucial features, thereby increasing detection accuracy and overall model performance.
- We extracted a portion of data from the ai-hub's " Integrated Plant Disease Induction Data " public dataset to construct a new cucumber pest and disease dataset. To ensure data quality, we manually re-annotated the leaves in each image and carefully filtered the original images. After eliminating some unorganized data, we concentrated on two primary cucumber afflictions: downy mildew and powdery mildew, culminating in this optimized new dataset.
2. Related Works
2.1. Traditional Machine Learning Methods
2.1. Deep Learning Methods
3. Disease detection overview
3.2. Standard YOLOv8
3.3. Proposed YOLOv8
3.3.1. MultiCat Module
3.3.2. AD-C2f Module
3.3.2. C2fe (Enhanced) Module
4. Experiments
4.1. Equipment and Parameter Settings
4.2. Evaluation Metrics
4.3. Experimental Results
4.4. Comparative Experiments

4.5. Ablation Experiment and result
| Network | Precision/% | Recall/% | mAP50 | mAP50-95 | FPS |
| YOLOV8s | 83.4% | 79.4% | 87.5% | 52.0% | 181.8 |
| DM-YOLOV8 | 84.2% | 80.8% | 88.2% | 53.0% | 178.5 |
| C2fe | 84.2% | 78.7% | 88.1% | 53.0% | 156.3 |
| ADC2F | 82.3% | 79.8% | 87.8% | 51.8% | 192.3 |
| MULTCAT | 83.7% | 79.4% | 88.1% | 52.9% | 172.4 |
| C2fe+ADC2F | 83.2% | 78.2% | 87.4% | 52.6% | 178.6 |
| C2fe+MULTCAT | 83.8% | 80.3% | 88.0% | 53.1% | 172.4 |
| ADC2+MULTCAT | 83.7% | 79.0% | 87.5% | 52.4% | 178.6 |
5. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
References
- Staub, J.E.; Robbins, M.D.; Wehner, T.C. Cucumber. In Vegetables I: Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Chenopodicaceae, and Cucurbitaceae; Prohens, J., Nuez, F., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 241–282.
- Rur, M.; Rämert, B.; Hökeberg, M.; Vetukuri, RR.; Grenville-Briggs, L. Screening of alternative products for integrated pest management of cucurbit powdery mildew in Sweden.Eur J Plant Pathol, vol.150, pp.127–138, 2018. [CrossRef]
- Wan, B.; Zhou, E.; Xiao, P.; Sun, X.; Yang, J. Pesticide overuse in vegetable production: A case study of urban agriculture in city x, China. Environ. Res. Commun. vol.5, no. 085012, 2023.
- Li, Y. Scientific Identification and Control Measures of Several Diseases of Greenhouse Cucumbers. Grassroots Agricultural Technology Extension, vol.9, pp. 40-42, 2021.
- Türkoğlu, M.; Hanbay, D. Plant disease and pest detection using deep learning-based features. Turkish J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci, vol.27, pp.1636-1651, 2019.
- Liu, W.; Anguelov, D.; Erhan, D.; Szegedy, C.; Reed, S.; Fu, C.Y.; Berg, A.C. SSD: Single shot multibox detector. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV); 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, T.Y.; Dollár, P.; Girshick, R.; He, K.; Hariharan, B.; Belongie, S. Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection. In Proceedings of the ICCV; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bochkovskiy, A.; Wang, C.Y.; Liao, H.Y.M. YOLOv4: Optimal Speed and Accuracy of Object Detection. arXiv:2004.10934, 2020.
- Jocher, G.; Stoken, A.; Borovec, J.; Fomin, F.F.; Hoang, L.Q.V.; Eskenazi, M.; Anselmo, J.; Zhang, Z.; Borkowski, A.A. Borkowski. YOLOv5. GitHub repository, 2021.
- Carion, N.; Massa, F.; Synnaeve, G.; Usunier, N.; Kirillov, A.; Zagoruyko, S. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In Proceedings of the ECCV; pp. 213–219, 2020.
- Tian, Z.; Shen, C.; Chen, H.; He, T. FCOS: Fully Convolutional One-Stage Object Detection. In Proceedings of the ICCV; pp. 9627–9636, 2019.
- Ge, X.; Li, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, H.; Tang, R.; Luo, P. YOLOX: Exceeding YOLO Series in 2021. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2107.08430, 2021.
- Ren, S.; He, K.; Girshick, R.; Sun, J. Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks. In Proceedings of the NeurIPS; 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Girshick, R.; Donahue, J.; Darrell, T.; Malik, J. Rich Feature Hierarchies for Accurate Object Detection and Semantic Segmentation. In Proceedings of the CVPR; pp. 580–587, 2014.
- Girshick, R. Fast R-CNN. In Proceedings of the ICCV; 2015. [Google Scholar]
- He, K.; Gkioxari, G.; Dollár, P.; Girshick, R. Mask R-CNN. In Proceedings of the ICCV; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Cai, Z.; Vasconcelos, N. Cascade R-CNN: Delving into High-Quality Object Detection. In Proceedings of the CVPR; 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Sirisha, U.; Praveen, S.P.; Srinivasu, P.N.; Barsocchi, P.; Bhoi, A.K. Statistical Analysis of Design Aspects of Various YOLO-Based Deep Learning Models for Object Detection. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst., vol.16, no.1, p. 126, 2023. [CrossRef]
- Bacea, D.S.; Oniga, F. "Single stage architecture for improved accuracy real-time object detection on mobile devices," Image Vision Comput., vol. 130, 2023, Art. no. 104613, ISSN 0262-8856,. [CrossRef]
- Ebrahimi, M.A.; Khoshtaghaza, M.H.; Minaei, S.; Jamshidi, B. "Vision-based pest detection based on SVM classification method," Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 137, pp. 52-58, 2017,. [CrossRef]
- Mondal, D.; Kole, D. K.; Roy, K. Gradation of yellow mosaic virus disease of okra and bitter gourd based on entropy-based binning and Naive Bayes classifier after identification of leaves. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol.142(Part B), pp.485-493, 2017. [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.; Huang, X.; Lin, L.; Wang, Q.; Liu, J.; Yu, K.; Chen, C. BP neural networks and random forest models to detect damage by Dendrolimus punctatus Walker. J. For. Res. Vol.31, pp.107–121, 2020. [CrossRef]
- Amirruddin, A.D.; Muharam, F.M.; Ismail, M.H.; Ismail, M.F.; Tan, N.P.; Karam, D.S. Hyperspectral remote sensing for assessment of chlorophyll sufficiency levels in mature oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) based on frond numbers: Analysis of decision tree and random forest. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol.169, pp.105221, 2020. [CrossRef]
- Sethy, P.K.; Barpanda, N.K.; Rath, A.K.; Behera, S.K. "Deep feature based rice leaf disease identification using support vector machine," Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 173, Art. no. 10 5527, 2020, ISSN 0168–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, X.; Li, W.; Li, Z.; Yi, L. Recognition of Grape Leaf Diseases Using MobileNetV3 and Deep Transfer Learning. Int. J. Agric. & Biol. Eng. Vol.15, no.3, pp.184–194, 2022. [CrossRef]
- Sankareshwaran, S.P.; Jayaraman, G.; Muthukumar, P.; Krishnan, A. Optimizing Rice Plant Disease Detection with Crossover Boosted Artificial Hummingbird Algorithm Based AX-RetinaNet. Environ. Monit. Assess. Vol.195, pp.1070, 2023. [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Hu, B.; Zhao, C. Detection and Identification of Cucumber Leaf Diseases Based Improved YOLOv7. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. vol.39, pp.164–172, 2023. [CrossRef]
- Yang, G.; Wang, J.; Nie, Z.; Yang, H.; Yu, S. A Lightweight YOLOv8 Tomato Detection Algorithm Combining Feature Enhancement and Attention. Agronomy, vol.13, pp.1824, 2023. [CrossRef]









| Parameters | Configuration |
|---|---|
| CPU | AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6-Core Processor 3.60 GHz |
| GPU | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 |
| GPU memory size | 32G |
| Operating systems | Win 10 |
| Deep learning architecture | Pytorch1.9.2 + Cuda11.4 + cudnn 8.2.0 |
| Parameters | Value |
|---|---|
| Task | Detect |
| Epochs | 120 |
| Batch size | 20 |
| Image Size | 640 |
| Optimizer | SGD |
| Algorithm | CLASS | Precision/% | Recall/% | mAP50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yolov8 | All | 83.4% | 79.4% | 87.4% |
| A3 | 87.5% | 77.8% | 90.3% | |
| A4 | 79.3% | 81.0% | 84.5% | |
| DM-Yolov8 | All | 84.2% | 81.5% | 88.25% |
| A3 | 85.1% | 83.0% | 91.0% | |
| A4 | 83.4% | 80.0% | 85.5% |
| Network | Precision/% | Recall/% | mAP50 | Pram (MB) | FPS |
| Yolov5 | 84.2% | 81.0% | 87.6% | 26.76MB | 153.84 |
| Yolov8 | 83.4% | 79.4% | 87.4% | 11.47MB | 181.8 |
| Retinanet | 90.63% | 60.40% | 84.17% | 144.84 MB | 25.93 |
| SSD | 85.16% | 30.77% | 56.45% | 100.27MB | 65.8 |
| Faster -Rcnn | 43.1% | 86.58% | 86.58% | 108MB | 11.94 |
| DM-yolov8 | 84.2% | 80.8% | 88.2% | 12.2MB | 178.57 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).