ArticleScientific reports2022
Identifying and extracting bark key features of 42 tree species using convolutional neural networks and class activation mapping.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- BarkVisionAI: Novel dataset for rapid tree species identification.Scientific data · 2026Article
- SapBark-64: A dataset of bark images for 64 fruit-tree sapling classes.Data in brief · 2026Article
- Plant and Disease Recognition Based on PMF Pipeline Domain Adaptation Method: Using Bark Images as Meta-Dataset.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.