↓ Skip to main content

Fine-grained recognition of plants from images

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fine-grained recognition of plants from images
Published in
Plant Methods, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13007-017-0265-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Milan Šulc, Jiří Matas

Abstract

Fine-grained recognition of plants from images is a challenging computer vision task, due to the diverse appearance and complex structure of plants, high intra-class variability and small inter-class differences. We review the state-of-the-art and discuss plant recognition tasks, from identification of plants from specific plant organs to general plant recognition "in the wild". We propose texture analysis and deep learning methods for different plant recognition tasks. The methods are evaluated and compared them to the state-of-the-art. Texture analysis is only applied to images with unambiguous segmentation (bark and leaf recognition), whereas CNNs are only applied when sufficiently large datasets are available. The results provide an insight in the complexity of different plant recognition tasks. The proposed methods outperform the state-of-the-art in leaf and bark classification and achieve very competitive results in plant recognition "in the wild". The results suggest that recognition of segmented leaves is practically a solved problem, when high volumes of training data are available. The generality and higher capacity of state-of-the-art CNNs makes them suitable for plant recognition "in the wild" where the views on plant organs or plants vary significantly and the difficulty is increased by occlusions and background clutter.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Student > Master 11 11%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 29 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 25 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 15%
Engineering 9 9%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 36 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,579,736
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#961
of 1,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#328,891
of 440,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#32
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.