Improving Rice Pest Management Through RP11: A Scientifically Annotated Dataset for Adult Insect Recognition
Rice yields are expected to drop significantly due to the increasing spread of rice pests. Detecting rice pests in a timely manner using deep learning models has become a prevalent approach for rapid pest control. However, current datasets related to rice pests often suffer from limited sample sizes...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Life |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/6/910 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Rice yields are expected to drop significantly due to the increasing spread of rice pests. Detecting rice pests in a timely manner using deep learning models has become a prevalent approach for rapid pest control. However, current datasets related to rice pests often suffer from limited sample sizes or poorly annotated labels, which compromises the training accuracy of deep learning models. Building upon the large-scale IP102 dataset, this study refines the rice pest segment of IP102 by separating adult specimens and larva specimens, acquiring additional pest images via web crawler techniques, and re-annotating all adult samples. The pest category names, originally in English, are replaced with the Latin scientific names of the corresponding families to improve both clarity and scientific accuracy. The resulting dataset, designated RP11, includes 11 adult categories with 4559 images and 7 larval categories with 2467 images. All annotations follow a labeling format compatible with YOLO model training. The sample count in RP11 is approximately four times that of the rice-specific subset in IP102. In this work, YOLOv11 was employed to evaluate RP11’s performance, with IP102 serving as a comparison dataset. The results demonstrate that RP11 outperforms IP102 in precision (83.0% vs. 58.9%), recall (79.7% vs. 63.1%), F1-score (81.3% vs. 60.9%), mAP50 (87.2% vs. 62.0%), and mAP50–95 (73.3% vs. 37.9%). |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2075-1729 |