ArticleFrontiers in plant science2025
Vision-language models for zero-shot weed detection and visual reasoning in UAV-based precision agriculture.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accurate weed detection in UAV grassland images via intelligent annotation and multi-dimensional network enhancement.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- A multi-agent vision-language debate framework for zero-shot crop disease diagnosis.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- RGC-YOLO: a lightweight YOLOv8n-based detector for edge-deployable weed detection in Xinjiang cotton fields.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Weeds remain a major constraint to row-crop productivity, yet current deep learning approaches for UAV imagery often require extensive annotation, generalize poorly across fields, and provide limited interpretability. We investigate whether modern vision-language models (VLMs) can address these gaps in a zero-shot setting. Using drone images from soybean fields with ground-truth weed boxes, we evaluate six commercial VLMs, ChatGPT-4.1, ChatGPT-4o, Gemini Flash 2.5, Gemini Flash Lite 2.5, LLaMA-4 Scout, and LLaMA-4 Maverick under a unified prompt that elicits (i) weed presence, (ii) spatial localization, (iii) reasoning, (iv) crop growth stage, and (v) crop type. We further introduce Error-Probing Prompting (EPP), a counterfactual follow-up that forces re-analysis under the assumption that weeds are present, and we quantify self-correction with expert-rated interpretability scores (Grounding, Specificity, Plausibility, Non-Hallucination, Actionability). Across models, Gemini Flash 2.5 delivers the most consistent zero-shot performance and highest interpretability, ChatGPT-4.1 provides the strongest reasoning but lower raw detection, ChatGPT-4o offers a balanced profile, and LLaMA-4 variants lag in localization and specificity. Gemini Flash Lite 2.5 is efficient but fails EPP stress tests, revealing brittle reasoning. Visual grounding analysis and a text-to-region overlap metric show that interpretability tracks spatial correctness. Results highlight that explainability and feedback driven adaptability not scale alone best predict reliability for field deployment, and position VLMs as promising, low-annotation tools for precision weed management.
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.