Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34833515›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Towards Automated Analysis of Grain Spikes in Greenhouse Images Using Neural Network Approaches: A Comparative Investigation of Six Methods.

Sajid Ullah, Michael Henke, Narendra Narisetti, Klára Panzarová, Martin Trtílek, Jan Hejatko, Evgeny Gladilin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Awn Image Analysis and Phenotyping Using BarbNet.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2023
    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

7 authors.

Sajid UllahPlant Sciences Core Facility, CEITEC-Central European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, 60200 Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-4906-721X
Michael HenkePlant Sciences Core Facility, CEITEC-Central European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, 60200 Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-0673-3873
Narendra NarisettiLeibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), 06466 Gatersleben, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7584-9461
Klára PanzarováPSI (Photon Systems Instruments), spol. s r.o., 66424 Drasov, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-7519-5162
Martin TrtílekPSI (Photon Systems Instruments), spol. s r.o., 66424 Drasov, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-6294-052X
Jan HejatkoPlant Sciences Core Facility, CEITEC-Central European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, 60200 Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-2622-6046
Evgeny GladilinLeibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), 06466 Gatersleben, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6153-727X

Funding

European Regional Development Fund No.CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_026/0008446
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automated analysis of small and optically variable plant organs, such as grain spikes, is highly demanded in quantitative plant science and breeding. Previous works primarily focused on the detection of prominently visible spikes emerging on the top of the grain plants growing in field conditions. However, accurate and automated analysis of all fully and partially visible spikes in greenhouse images renders a more challenging task, which was rarely addressed in the past. A particular difficulty for image analysis is represented by leaf-covered, occluded but also matured spikes of bushy crop cultivars that can hardly be differentiated from the remaining plant biomass. To address the challenge of automated analysis of arbitrary spike phenotypes in different grain crops and optical setups, here, we performed a comparative investigation of six neural network methods for pattern detection and segmentation in RGB images, including five deep and one shallow neural network. Our experimental results demonstrate that advanced deep learning methods show superior performance, achieving over 90% accuracy by detection and segmentation of spikes in wheat, barley and rye images. However, spike detection in new crop phenotypes can be performed more accurately than segmentation. Furthermore, the detection and segmentation of matured, partially visible and occluded spikes, for which phenotypes substantially deviate from the training set of regular spikes, still represent a challenge to neural network models trained on a limited set of a few hundreds of manually labeled ground truth images. Limitations and further potential improvements of the presented algorithmic frameworks for spike image analysis are discussed. Besides theoretical and experimental investigations, we provide a GUI-based tool (SpikeApp), which shows the application of pre-trained neural networks to fully automate spike detection, segmentation and phenotyping in images of greenhouse-grown plants.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerPlant BreedingEdible GrainImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPlant Leavesautomated plant phenotypingdeep learninghigh-throughput plant image analysisspike detectionspike segmentation

Identifiers

PMID34833515
PMCPMC8621358

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.