ArticlePlant methods2023
Semantic segmentation of plant roots from RGB (mini-) rhizotron images-generalisation potential and false positives of established methods and advanced deep-learning models.
Article in Plant methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- RootQuantV2: Adapting a Vision Foundation Model for Root-Trait Regression from Minirhizotron Imagery.ArXiv · 2026Article
- Soil Warming Shifts Seasonal and Soil Depth-Related Root Growth Dynamics in Subarctic Grasslands.Global change biology · 2026Article
- WaveUNet+: Preserving Root System Architecture Integrity in In Situ Root Segmentation via a Unified Spectral-Spatial Framework.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A systematic comparison of transformers and ConvNets for root segmentation across nine datasets.Plant methods · 2026Article
- Variation in forest root image annotation by experts, novices, and AI.Plant methods · 2024Article
- The State of the Art in Root System Architecture Image Analysis Using Artificial Intelligence: A Review.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundManual analysis of (mini-)rhizotron (MR) images is tedious. Several methods have been proposed for semantic root segmentation based on homogeneous, single-source MR datasets. Recent advances in deep learning (DL) have enabled automated feature extraction, but comparisons of segmentation accuracy, false positives and transferability are virtually lacking. Here we compare six state-of-the-art methods and propose two improved DL models for semantic root segmentation using a large MR dataset with and without augmented data. We determine the performance of the methods on a homogeneous maize dataset, and a mixed dataset of > 8 species (mixtures), 6 soil types and 4 imaging systems. The generalisation potential of the derived DL models is determined on a distinct, unseen dataset.
resultsThe best performance was achieved by the U-Net models; the more complex the encoder the better the accuracy and generalisation of the model. The heterogeneous mixed MR dataset was a particularly challenging for the non-U-Net techniques. Data augmentation enhanced model performance. We demonstrated the improved performance of deep meta-architectures and feature extractors, and a reduction in the number of false positives.
conclusionsAlthough correction factors are still required to match human labelled root lengths, neural network architectures greatly reduce the time required to compute the root length. The more complex architectures illustrate how future improvements in root segmentation within MR images can be achieved, particularly reaching higher segmentation accuracies and model generalisation when analysing real-world datasets with artefacts-limiting the need for model retraining.
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.