ArticlePlant methods2024
Variation in forest root image annotation by experts, novices, and AI.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A systematic comparison of transformers and ConvNets for root segmentation across nine datasets.Plant methods · 2026Article
- Dual-guided asymmetric MP-former for rice root instance segmentation.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Root growth and function in New Zealand pasture systems: a perspective on research needs, methods, and system integration.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Advancing hyperspectral imaging techniques for root systems: a new pipeline for macro- and microscale image acquisition and classification.Plant methods · 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
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.