Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 459

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deep learning for real-time fruit detection and orchard fruit load estimation: benchmarking of ‘MangoYOLO’

Open access
Koirala, A., Walsh, K. B., Wang, Z., McCarthy, C.·2019·Precision Agriculture

Abstract

The performance of six existing deep learning architectures were compared for the task of detection of mango fruit in images of tree canopies. Images of trees (n = 1 515) from across five orchards were acquired at night using a 5 Mega-pixel RGB digital camera and 720 W of LED flood lighting in a rig mounted on a farm utility vehicle operating at 6 km/h. The two stage deep learning architectures of Faster R-CNN(VGG) and Faster R-CNN(ZF), and the single stage techniques YOLOv3, YOLOv2, YOLOv2(tiny) and SSD were trained both with original resolution and 512 × 512 pixel versions of 1 300 training tiles, while YOLOv3 was run only with 512 × 512 pixel images, giving a total of eleven models. A new architecture was also developed, based on features of YOLOv3 and YOLOv2(tiny), on the design criteria of accuracy and speed for the current application. This architecture, termed ‘MangoYOLO’, was trained using: (i) the 1 300 tile training set, (ii) the COCO dataset before training on the mango training set, and (iii) a daytime image training set of a previous publication, to create the MangoYOLO models ‘s’, ‘pt’ and ‘bu’, respectively. Average Precision plateaued with use of around 400 training tiles. MangoYOLO(pt) achieved a F1 score of 0.968 and Average Precision of 0.983 on a test set independent of the training set, outperforming other algorithms, with a detection speed of 8 ms per 512 × 512 pixel image tile while using just 833 Mb GPU memory per image (on a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti GPU) used for in-field application. The MangoYOLO model also outperformed other models in processing of full images, requiring just 70 ms per image (2 048 × 2 048 pixels) (i.e., capable of processing ~ 14 fps) with use of 4 417 Mb of GPU memory. The model was robust in use with images of other orchards, cultivars and lighting conditions. MangoYOLO(bu) achieved a F1 score of 0.89 on a day-time mango image dataset. With use of a correction factor estimated from the ratio of human count of fruit in images of the two sides of sample trees per orchard and a hand harvest count of all fruit on those trees, MangoYOLO(pt) achieved orchard fruit load estimates of between 4.6 and 15.2% of packhouse fruit counts for the five orchards considered. The labelled images (1 300 training, 130 validation and 300 test) of this study are available for comparative studies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11119-019-09642-0

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Cited by

See all 459

Metadata

Authors
Koirala, A., Walsh, K. B., Wang, Z., & McCarthy, C.
Venue
Precision Agriculture
Published
2019-02-28
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
1107-1135
ISSN
  • 1385-2256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1618
OpenAlex
W2920621226
Cited by
459
References
31
FWCI
35.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deep learning for real-time fruit detection and orchard fruit load estimation: benchmarking of ‘MangoYOLO’. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11119-019-09642-0
The paper
Koirala, A., Walsh, K. B., Wang, Z., & McCarthy, C. (2019). Deep learning for real-time fruit detection and orchard fruit load estimation: benchmarking of ‘MangoYOLO’. Precision Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-019-09642-0

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.