Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30937225›Full record

ArticleApplications in plant sciences2019

Toward a large-scale and deep phenological stage annotation of herbarium specimens: Case studies from temperate, tropical, and equatorial floras.

Titouan Lorieul, Katelin D Pearson, Elizabeth R Ellwood, Hervé Goëau, Jean-Francois Molino, Patrick W Sweeney, Jennifer M Yost, Joel Sachs, Erick Mata-Montero, Gil Nelson and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applications in plant sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Titouan LorieulUniversity of Montpellier Montpellier CEDEX 5 France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5228-9238
Katelin D PearsonDepartment of Biological Science Florida State University 319 Stadium Drive Tallahassee Florida 32306 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4947-7662
Elizabeth R EllwoodLa Brea Tar Pits and Museum Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 5801 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles California 90036 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1602-1917
Hervé GoëauAMAP Université de Montpellier CIRAD, CNRS, INRA, IRD Montpellier France.
Jean-Francois MolinoAMAP Université de Montpellier CIRAD, CNRS, INRA, IRD Montpellier France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8853-7133
Patrick W SweeneyDivision of Botany Peabody Museum of Natural History Yale University P.O. Box 208118 New Haven Connecticut 06520 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1239-189X
Jennifer M YostDepartment of Biological Sciences California Polytechnic State University 1 Grand Avenue San Luis Obispo California 93407 USA.
Joel SachsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada Ottawa Canada.
Erick Mata-MonteroSchool of Computing Costa Rica Institute of Technology Cartago Costa Rica.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5471-164X
Gil NelsoniDigBio Florida State University Tallahassee Florida 32306 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7851-4445
Pamela S SoltisFlorida Museum of Natural History University of Florida Gainesville Florida 32611 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9310-8659
Pierre BonnetAMAP Université de Montpellier CIRAD, CNRS, INRA, IRD Montpellier France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2828-4389
Alexis JolyInstitut national de recherche en informatique et en automatique (INRIA) Sophia-Antipolis, ZENITH team, Laboratory of Informatics Robotics and Microelectronics-Joint Research Unit, 34095 Montpellier CEDEX 5 France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

premise of the studyPhenological annotation models computed on large-scale herbarium data sets were developed and tested in this study.

methodsHerbarium specimens represent a significant resource with which to study plant phenology. Nevertheless, phenological annotation of herbarium specimens is time-consuming, requires substantial human investment, and is difficult to mobilize at large taxonomic scales. We created and evaluated new methods based on deep learning techniques to automate annotation of phenological stages and tested these methods on four herbarium data sets representing temperate, tropical, and equatorial American floras.

resultsDeep learning allowed correct detection of fertile material with an accuracy of 96.3%. Accuracy was slightly decreased for finer-scale information (84.3% for flower and 80.5% for fruit detection). DISCUSSION: The method described has the potential to allow fine-grained phenological annotation of herbarium specimens at large ecological scales. Deeper investigation regarding the taxonomic scalability of this approach is needed.

Indexed as

convolutional neural networkdeep learningherbarium datanatural history collectionsphenological stage annotationvisual data classification

Identifiers

PMID30937225
PMCPMC6426157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.