ArticleBMC bioinformatics2022
Adaptiveness of RGB-image derived algorithms in the measurement of fractional vegetation coverage.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A UAV-based semi-supervised segmentation framework for pine wilt disease via vegetation Index-RGB synergy.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Image-based vegetation analysis of desertified area by using a combination of ImageJ and Photoshop software.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFractional vegetation coverage (FVC) is a crucial parameter in determining vegetation structure. Automatic measurement of FVC using digital images captured by mobile smart devices is a potential direction for future research on field survey methods in plant ecology, and this algorithm is crucial for accurate FVC measurement. However, there is a lack of insight into the influence of illumination on the accuracy of FVC measurements. Therefore, the main objective of this research is to assess the adaptiveness and performance of different algorithms under varying light conditions for FVC measurements and to deepen our understanding of the influence of illumination on FVC measurement. METHODS AND
resultsBased on a literature survey, we selected four algorithms that have been reported to have high accuracy in automatic FVC measurements. The first algorithm (Fun01) identifies green plants based on the combination of [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] are the actual pixel digital numbers from the images based on each RGB channel, [Formula: see text] is the abbreviation of the Excess Green index), the second algorithm (Fun02) is a decision tree that uses color properties to discriminate plants from the background, the third algorithm (Fun03) uses [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text] is the abbreviation of the Excess Red index) to recognize plants in the image, and the fourth algorithm (Fun04) uses [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] to separate the plants from the background. [Formula: see text] is an algorithm used to determine a threshold to transform the image into a binary image for the vegetation and background. We measured the FVC of several surveyed quadrats using these four algorithms under three scenarios, namely overcast sky, solar forenoon, and solar noon. FVC values obtained using the Photoshop-assisted manual identification method were used as a reference to assess the accuracy of the four algorithms selected. Results indicate that under the overcast sky scenario, Fun01 was more accurate than the other algorithms and the MAPE (mean absolute percentage error), BIAS, relBIAS (relative BIAS), RMSE (root mean square error), and relRMSE (relative RMSE) are 8.68%, 1.3, 3.97, 3.13, and 12.33%, respectively. Under the scenario of the solar forenoon, Fun02 (decision tree) was more accurate than other algorithms, and the MAPE, BIAS, relBIAS, RMSE, and relRMSE are 22.70%, - 2.86, - 7.70, 5.00, and 41.23%. Under the solar noon scenario, Fun02 was also more accurate than the other algorithms, and the MAPE, BIAS, relBIAS, RMSE, and relRMSE are 20.60%, - 6.39, - 20.67, 7.30, and 24.49%, respectively.
conclusionsGiven that each algorithm has its own optimal application scenario, among the four algorithms selected, Fun01 (the combination of [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text]) can be recommended for measuring FVC on cloudy days. Fun02 (decision tree) is more suitable for measuring the FVC on sunny days. However, it considerably underestimates the FVC in most cases. We expect the findings of this study to serve as a useful reference for automatic vegetation cover measurements.
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.