Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39350215›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2024

Variation in forest root image annotation by experts, novices, and AI.

Grace Handy, Imogen Carter, A Rob Mackenzie, Adriane Esquivel-Muelbert, Abraham George Smith, Daniela Yaffar, Joanne Childs, Marie Arnaud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Grace HandyBirmingham Institute of Forest Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. gih849@student.bham.ac.uk.
Imogen CarterBirmingham Institute of Forest Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
A Rob MackenzieBirmingham Institute of Forest Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Adriane Esquivel-MuelbertBirmingham Institute of Forest Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Abraham George SmithDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Daniela YaffarEnvironmental Science Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.
Joanne ChildsEnvironmental Science Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.
Marie ArnaudBirmingham Institute of Forest Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

European Commission 10106240Natural Environment Research Council NE/S007350/1Natural Environment Research Council NE/S015833/1Novo Nordisk Fonden NNF22OC0080177Woodland Trust 1975983
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe manual study of root dynamics using images requires huge investments of time and resources and is prone to previously poorly quantified annotator bias. Artificial intelligence (AI) image-processing tools have been successful in overcoming limitations of manual annotation in homogeneous soils, but their efficiency and accuracy is yet to be widely tested on less homogenous, non-agricultural soil profiles, e.g., that of forests, from which data on root dynamics are key to understanding the carbon cycle. Here, we quantify variance in root length measured by human annotators with varying experience levels. We evaluate the application of a convolutional neural network (CNN) model, trained on a software accessible to researchers without a machine learning background, on a heterogeneous minirhizotron image dataset taken in a multispecies, mature, deciduous temperate forest.

resultsLess experienced annotators consistently identified more root length than experienced annotators. Root length annotation also varied between experienced annotators. The CNN root length results were neither precise nor accurate, taking ~ 10% of the time but significantly overestimating root length compared to expert manual annotation (p = 0.01). The CNN net root length change results were closer to manual (p = 0.08) but there remained substantial variation.

conclusionsManual root length annotation is contingent on the individual annotator. The only accessible CNN model cannot yet produce root data of sufficient accuracy and precision for ecological applications when applied to a complex, heterogeneous forest image dataset. A continuing evaluation and development of accessible CNNs for natural ecosystems is required.

Indexed as

ForestsImage analysisMachine learningMinirhizotronRoot annotationRoots

Identifiers

PMID39350215
PMCPMC11443924

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.