Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39525981›Full record

ArticlePlant phenomics (Washington, D.C.)2024

Counting Canola: Toward Generalizable Aerial Plant Detection Models.

Erik Andvaag, Kaylie Krys, Steven J Shirtliffe, Ian Stavness

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Deep learning in plant phenotyping: the first ten years.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2025
    Review
  3. 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

4 authors.

Erik AndvaagDepartment of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5921-7982
Kaylie KrysDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1958-4018
Steven J ShirtliffeDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3603-7417
Ian StavnessDepartment of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2044-2565

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant population counts are highly valued by crop producers as important early-season indicators of field health. Traditionally, emergence rate estimates have been acquired through manual counting, an approach that is labor-intensive and relies heavily on sampling techniques. By applying deep learning-based object detection models to aerial field imagery, accurate plant population counts can be obtained for much larger areas of a field. Unfortunately, current detection models often perform poorly when they are faced with image conditions that do not closely resemble the data found in their training sets. In this paper, we explore how specific facets of a plant detector's training set can affect its ability to generalize to unseen image sets. In particular, we examine how a plant detection model's generalizability is influenced by the size, diversity, and quality of its training data. Our experiments show that the gap between in-distribution and out-of-distribution performance cannot be closed by merely increasing the size of a model's training set. We also demonstrate the importance of training set diversity in producing generalizable models, and show how different types of annotation noise can elicit different model behaviors in out-of-distribution test sets. We conduct our investigations with a large and diverse dataset of canola field imagery that we assembled over several years. We also present a new web tool, Canola Counter, which is specifically designed for remote-sensed aerial plant detection tasks. We use the Canola Counter tool to prepare our annotated canola seedling dataset and conduct our experiments. Both our dataset and web tool are publicly available.

Identifiers

PMID39525981
PMCPMC11543947

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.