Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38144190›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2023

Data science competition for cross-site individual tree species identification from airborne remote sensing data.

Sarah J Graves, Sergio Marconi, Dylan Stewart, Ira Harmon, Ben Weinstein, Yuzi Kanazawa, Victoria M Scholl, Maxwell B Joseph, Joseph McGlinchy, Luke Browne and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Sarah J GravesNelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3805-4242
Sergio MarconiDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States.
Dylan StewartDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4505-657X
Ira HarmonDepartment of Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States.
Ben WeinsteinDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States.
Yuzi KanazawaArtificial Intelligence Laboratory, Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd., Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan.
Victoria M SchollEarth Lab, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2085-1449
Maxwell B JosephEarth Lab, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7745-9990
Joseph McGlinchyEarth Lab, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, United States.
Luke BrowneYale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2239-3007
Megan K SullivanYale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9926-1929
Sergio Estrada-VillegasYale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States.
Daisy Zhe WangDepartment of Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States.
Aditya SinghDepartment of Agricultural & Biological Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States.
Stephanie BohlmanSchool of Forest, Fisheries, and Geomatics Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States.
Alina ZareDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4847-7604
Ethan P WhiteDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6728-7745

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data on individual tree crowns from remote sensing have the potential to advance forest ecology by providing information about forest composition and structure with a continuous spatial coverage over large spatial extents. Classifying individual trees to their taxonomic species over large regions from remote sensing data is challenging. Methods to classify individual species are often accurate for common species, but perform poorly for less common species and when applied to new sites. We ran a data science competition to help identify effective methods for the task of classification of individual crowns to species identity. The competition included data from three sites to assess each methods' ability to generalize patterns across two sites simultaneously and apply methods to an untrained site. Three different metrics were used to assess and compare model performance. Six teams participated, representing four countries and nine individuals. The highest performing method from a previous competition in 2017 was applied and used as a baseline to understand advancements and changes in successful methods. The best species classification method was based on a two-stage fully connected neural network that significantly outperformed the baseline random forest and gradient boosting ensemble methods. All methods generalized well by showing relatively strong performance on the trained sites (accuracy = 0.46-0.55, macro F1 = 0.09-0.32, cross entropy loss = 2.4-9.2), but generally failed to transfer effectively to the untrained site (accuracy = 0.07-0.32, macro F1 = 0.02-0.18, cross entropy loss = 2.8-16.3). Classification performance was influenced by the number of samples with species labels available for training, with most methods predicting common species at the training sites well (maximum F1 score of 0.86) relative to the uncommon species where none were predicted. Classification errors were most common between species in the same genus and different species that occur in the same habitat. Most methods performed better than the baseline in detecting if a species was not in the training data by predicting an untrained mixed-species class, especially in the untrained site. This work has highlighted that data science competitions can encourage advancement of methods, particularly by bringing in new people from outside the focal discipline, and by providing an open dataset and evaluation criteria from which participants can learn.

Indexed as

Data ScienceRemote Sensing TechnologyEcosystemHumansNeural Networks, ComputerAirborne remote sensingData science competitionNational ecological observatory networkSpecies classification

Identifiers

PMID38144190
PMCPMC10749090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.