Paper · 2025 · IEEE Access

Early Diagnosis and Severity Assessment of Weligama Coconut Leaf Wilt Disease and Coconut Caterpillar Infestation Using Deep Learning-Based Image Processing Techniques

Samitha Vidhanaarachchi; Janaka L. Wijekoon; W. A. Shanaka P. Abeysiriwardhana; et al.

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
13
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Global Coconut (Cocos nucifera (L.)) cultivation faces significant challenges, including yield loss, due to pest and disease outbreaks. In particular, Weligama Coconut Leaf Wilt Disease (WCWLD) and Coconut Caterpillar Infestation (CCI) damage coconut trees, causing severe coconut production loss in Sri Lanka and nearby coconut-producing countries. Currently, both WCWLD and CCI are detected through on-field human observations, a process that is not only time-consuming but also limits the early detection of infections. This paper presents a study conducted in Sri Lanka, demonstrating the effectiveness of employing transfer learning-based Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and Mask Region-based-CNN (Mask R-CNN) to identify WCWLD and CCI at their early stages and to assess disease progression. Further, this paper presents the use of the You Only Look Once (YOLO) object detection model to count the number of caterpillars distributed on leaves with CCI. The introduced methods were tested and validated using datasets collected from Matara, Puttalam, and Makandura, Sri Lanka. The results show that the proposed methods identify WCWLD and CCI with an accuracy of 90% and 95%, respectively. In addition, the proposed WCWLD disease severity identification method classifies the severity with an accuracy of 97%. Furthermore, the accuracies of the object detection models for calculating the number of caterpillars in the leaflets were: YOLOv5-96.87%, YOLOv8-96.1%, and YOLO11-95.9%.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The method identified Weligama Coconut Leaf Wilt Disease with 90% accuracy.

Taxon
Coconutt0
Outcome
identify WCWLDe0
Value
90%e0

Verbatim

e0

“The results show that the proposed methods identify WCWLD and CCI with an accuracy of 90% and 95%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1085–1197 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coconut Leaf Wilt Disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–77 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The method identified coconut caterpillar infestation with 95% accuracy.

Taxon
Coconutt0
Outcome
identify WCWLD and CCIe0
Value
95%e0

Verbatim

e0

“The results show that the proposed methods identify WCWLD and CCI with an accuracy of 90% and 95%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1085–1197 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coconut Caterpillar Infestation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–113 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The leaf wilt severity method classified severity with 97% accuracy.

Taxon
Coconutt0
Outcome
classifies the severitye0
Value
97%e0

Verbatim

e0

“the proposed WCWLD disease severity identification method classifies the severity with an accuracy of 97%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1211–1317 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coconut Leaf Wilt Disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–77 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

YOLOv5 counted caterpillars in leaflets with 96.87% accuracy.

Taxon
Coconutt0
Outcome
calculating the number of caterpillars in the leafletse0
Value
96.87%e0
Comparator
YOLOv5e0

Verbatim

e0

“the accuracies of the object detection models for calculating the number of caterpillars in the leaflets were: YOLOv5-96.87%, YOLOv8-96.1%, and YOLO11-95.9%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1331–1488 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coconut Caterpillar Infestation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–113 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

YOLOv8 counted caterpillars in leaflets with 96.1% accuracy.

Taxon
Coconutt0
Outcome
calculating the number of caterpillars in the leafletse0
Value
96.1%e0
Comparator
YOLOv8e0

Verbatim

e0

“the accuracies of the object detection models for calculating the number of caterpillars in the leaflets were: YOLOv5-96.87%, YOLOv8-96.1%, and YOLO11-95.9%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1331–1488 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coconut Caterpillar Infestation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–113 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

YOLO11 counted caterpillars in leaflets with 95.9% accuracy.

Taxon
Coconutt0
Outcome
calculating the number of caterpillars in the leafletse0
Value
95.9%e0
Comparator
YOLO11e0

Verbatim

e0

“the accuracies of the object detection models for calculating the number of caterpillars in the leaflets were: YOLOv5-96.87%, YOLOv8-96.1%, and YOLO11-95.9%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1331–1488 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coconut Caterpillar Infestation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–113 · show in text ↑