ArticleFrontiers in plant science2022
Evaluating Cross-Applicability of Weed Detection Models Across Different Crops in Similar Production Environments.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research Progress of Spectral Imaging Techniques in Plant Phenotype Studies.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- More eyes on the prize: open-source data, software and hardware for advancing plant science through collaboration.AoB PLANTS · 2023Review
- Use of synthetic images for training a deep learning model for weed detection and biomass estimation in cotton.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- YOLOX-based blue laser weeding robot in corn field.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have revolutionized the weed detection process with tremendous improvements in precision and accuracy. However, training these models is time-consuming and computationally demanding; thus, training weed detection models for every crop-weed environment may not be feasible. It is imperative to evaluate how a CNN-based weed detection model trained for a specific crop may perform in other crops. In this study, a CNN model was trained to detect morningglories and grasses in cotton. Assessments were made to gauge the potential of the very model in detecting the same weed species in soybean and corn under two levels of detection complexity (levels 1 and 2). Two popular object detection frameworks, YOLOv4 and Faster R-CNN, were trained to detect weeds under two schemes: Detect_Weed (detecting at weed/crop level) and Detect_Species (detecting at weed species level). In addition, the main cotton dataset was supplemented with different amounts of non-cotton crop images to see if cross-crop applicability can be improved. Both frameworks achieved reasonably high accuracy levels for the cotton test datasets under both schemes (Average Precision-AP: 0.83-0.88 and Mean Average Precision-mAP: 0.65-0.79). The same models performed differently over other crops under both frameworks (AP: 0.33-0.83 and mAP: 0.40-0.85). In particular, relatively higher accuracies were observed for soybean than for corn, and also for complexity level 1 than for level 2. Significant improvements in cross-crop applicability were further observed when additional corn and soybean images were added to the model training. These findings provide valuable insights into improving global applicability of weed detection models.
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.