ArticlePeerJ2019
A data science challenge for converting airborne remote sensing data into ecological information.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- On the modelling of tropical tree growth: the importance of intra-specific trait variation, non-linear functions and phenotypic integration.Annals of botany · 2021Article
- Fusion neural networks for plant classification: learning to combine RGB, hyperspectral, and lidar data.PeerJ · 2021Article
- Article
- Hyperspectral tree crown classification using the multiple instance adaptive cosine estimator.PeerJ · 2019Article
- Individual tree crown delineation and tree species classification with hyperspectral and LiDAR data.PeerJ · 2019Article
- Remote sensing pipeline for tree segmentation and classification in a mixed softwood and hardwood system.PeerJ · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ecology has reached the point where data science competitions, in which multiple groups solve the same problem using the same data by different methods, will be productive for advancing quantitative methods for tasks such as species identification from remote sensing images. We ran a competition to help improve three tasks that are central to converting images into information on individual trees: (1) crown segmentation, for identifying the location and size of individual trees; (2) alignment, to match ground truthed trees with remote sensing; and (3) species classification of individual trees. Six teams (composed of 16 individual participants) submitted predictions for one or more tasks. The crown segmentation task proved to be the most challenging, with the highest-performing algorithm yielding only 34% overlap between remotely sensed crowns and the ground truthed trees. However, most algorithms performed better on large trees. For the alignment task, an algorithm based on minimizing the difference, in terms of both position and tree size, between ground truthed and remotely sensed crowns yielded a perfect alignment. In hindsight, this task was over simplified by only including targeted trees instead of all possible remotely sensed crowns. Several algorithms performed well for species classification, with the highest-performing algorithm correctly classifying 92% of individuals and performing well on both common and rare species. Comparisons of results across algorithms provided a number of insights for improving the overall accuracy in extracting ecological information from remote sensing. Our experience suggests that this kind of competition can benefit methods development in ecology and biology more broadly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.