Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35306532›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Identifying and extracting bark key features of 42 tree species using convolutional neural networks and class activation mapping.

Tae Kyung Kim, Jeonghyun Hong, Daun Ryu, Sukyung Kim, Si Yeon Byeon, Woojin Huh, Kunhyo Kim, Gyu Heon Baek, Hyun Seok Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Tae Kyung KimDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry and Bioresources, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea.
Jeonghyun HongDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry and Bioresources, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea.
Daun RyuInterdisciplinary Program in Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea.
Sukyung KimDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry and Bioresources, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea.
Si Yeon ByeonDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry and Bioresources, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea.
Woojin HuhDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry and Bioresources, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea.
Kunhyo KimDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry and Bioresources, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea.
Gyu Heon BaekDepartment of Forest Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea.
Hyun Seok KimDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry and Bioresources, Seoul National University, Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea. cameroncrazies@snu.ac.kr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The significance of automatic plant identification has already been recognized by academia and industry. There were several attempts to utilize leaves and flowers for identification; however, bark also could be beneficial, especially for trees, due to its consistency throughout the seasons and its easy accessibility, even in high crown conditions. Previous studies regarding bark identification have mostly contributed quantitatively to increasing classification accuracy. However, ever since computer vision algorithms surpassed the identification ability of humans, an open question arises as to how machines successfully interpret and unravel the complicated patterns of barks. Here, we trained two convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with distinct architectures using a large-scale bark image dataset and applied class activation mapping (CAM) aggregation to investigate diagnostic keys for identifying each species. CNNs could identify the barks of 42 species with > 90% accuracy, and the overall accuracies showed a small difference between the two models. Diagnostic keys matched with salient shapes, which were also easily recognized by human eyes, and were typified as blisters, horizontal and vertical stripes, lenticels of various shapes, and vertical crevices and clefts. The two models exhibited disparate quality in the diagnostic features: the old and less complex model showed more general and well-matching patterns, while the better-performing model with much deeper layers indicated local patterns less relevant to barks. CNNs were also capable of predicting untrained species by 41.98% and 48.67% within the correct genus and family, respectively. Our methodologies and findings are potentially applicable to identify and visualize crucial traits of other plant organs.

Indexed as

Plant BarkTreesAlgorithmsHumansNeural Networks, ComputerVision, Ocular

Identifiers

PMID35306532
PMCPMC8934343

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.