ArticleFrontiers in plant science2023
Non-destructive monitoring method for leaf area of
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multimodal learning on RGB-D image for precise litchi phenotyping and weight estimation.Plant methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Leaves are important organs for photosynthesis in plants, and the restriction of leaf growth is among the earliest visible effects under abiotic stress such as nutrient deficiency. Rapidly and accurately monitoring plant leaf area is of great importance in understanding plant growth status in modern agricultural production. Method: In this paper, an image processing-based non-destructive monitoring device that includes an image acquisition device and image process deep learning net for acquiring Results: The average error rate of the manual method is 12.12%, the average error rate of the stretching method is 5.63%, and the average error rate of the splint method is 0.65%. The accuracy of the automatic leaf acquisition device was improved by 11.47% and 4.98% compared with the manual and stretching methods, respectively, and had the advantages of speed and automation. Experiments on the effects of the manual method, stretching method, and splinting method on the growth of rapeseed are conducted, and the growth rate of rapeseed leaves under the stretching method treatment is considerably greater than that of the normal treatment rapeseed. Discussion: The growth rate of leaves under the splinting method treatment was less than that of the normal rapeseed treatment. The mean intersection over union (mIoU) of the UNet-Attention model reached 90%, and the splint method had higher prediction accuracy with little influence on rapeseed.
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.