Field evaluation demonstrates high harvesting success with a robotic apple harvester, suggesting improved efficiency in agricultural practices.
Apple picking is an inherently labor-intensive, time-consuming, and costly task, and robotic harvesting represents a potential alternative to address this challenge. This study presents the development and field evaluation of an integrated robotic system for apple harvesting, which combines machine vision, a dual four-degree-of-freedom (DoF) manipulator, and a mobile platform. The harvesting mechanism employed a streamlined 4-DoF manipulator driven by closed-loop stepper motors, incorporating a differential gear mechanism to execute yaw and pitch motions. Trajectory planning utilized linear interpolation with a harmonic acceleration/deceleration profile to ensure smooth end-effector movement. Fruit detection and localization within the canopy were performed by a stereo vision system running a lightweight deep neural network, achieving a mean hand-eye calibration accuracy of 4.7 ± 2.7 mm. Three negative-pressure driven soft end-effector designs—a suction soft end-effector (SSE), a grasping soft end-effector (GSE), and a suction-grasping soft end-effector (SGSE)—were assessed for their harvesting performance. Field trials conducted in a commercial spindle orchard demonstrated that the GSE achieved the highest performance, with a harvesting success rate of 80.80% among reachable fruits, a full-process success rate (from detection to collection) of 61.59%, an overall fruit damage rate of 10.89%, and an average single-fruit cycle time of 5.27 s. In contrast, the SSE and SGSE showed lower success rates (49.21% and 64.71%, respectively). This work provides a practical robotic harvesting solution. It validates the feasibility of a zoned, multi-manipulator harvesting strategy and delivers comparative data to guide the development of more efficient and robust harvesting robots.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: