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

IF 4.7 2区 生物学 Q1 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
Grace Handy, Imogen Carter, A Rob Mackenzie, Adriane Esquivel-Muelbert, Abraham George Smith, Daniela Yaffar, Joanne Childs, Marie Arnaud
{"title":"Variation in forest root image annotation by experts, novices, and AI.","authors":"Grace Handy, Imogen Carter, A Rob Mackenzie, Adriane Esquivel-Muelbert, Abraham George Smith, Daniela Yaffar, Joanne Childs, Marie Arnaud","doi":"10.1186/s13007-024-01279-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Less 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Manual 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":20100,"journal":{"name":"Plant Methods","volume":"20 1","pages":"154"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11443924/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plant Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-024-01279-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The 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.

Results: Less 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.

Conclusions: Manual 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.

专家、新手和人工智能在林根图像标注方面的差异。
背景:利用图像对根系动态进行人工研究需要投入大量的时间和资源,而且很容易出现以前难以量化的注释者偏差。人工智能(AI)图像处理工具已成功克服了同质土壤中人工标注的局限性,但其效率和准确性还有待在同质程度较低的非农业土壤剖面(如森林)中进行广泛测试,而根系动态数据是了解碳循环的关键。在这里,我们对不同经验水平的人工标注者所测量的根长差异进行了量化。我们对卷积神经网络(CNN)模型的应用进行了评估,该模型是在一个多树种、成熟的落叶温带森林中拍摄的异质小根系图像数据集上应用卷积神经网络(CNN)模型进行训练的,没有机器学习背景的研究人员也可以使用该软件:结果:与经验丰富的标注者相比,经验不足的标注者识别出的根长更多。不同经验的标注者对根长的标注也不尽相同。CNN 的根长结果既不精确也不准确,用时约为人工标注的 10%,但与专家人工标注相比明显高估了根长(p = 0.01)。CNN 的净根长变化结果更接近人工标注结果(p = 0.08),但仍存在很大差异:结论:人工根长标注取决于标注者个人。当应用于复杂、异构的森林图像数据集时,唯一可用的 CNN 模型还不能生成足够准确和精确的生态应用根数据。需要继续评估和开发适用于自然生态系统的 CNN。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Plant Methods
Plant Methods 生物-植物科学
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.90%
发文量
121
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Plant Methods is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal for the plant research community that encompasses all aspects of technological innovation in the plant sciences. There is no doubt that we have entered an exciting new era in plant biology. The completion of the Arabidopsis genome sequence, and the rapid progress being made in other plant genomics projects are providing unparalleled opportunities for progress in all areas of plant science. Nevertheless, enormous challenges lie ahead if we are to understand the function of every gene in the genome, and how the individual parts work together to make the whole organism. Achieving these goals will require an unprecedented collaborative effort, combining high-throughput, system-wide technologies with more focused approaches that integrate traditional disciplines such as cell biology, biochemistry and molecular genetics. Technological innovation is probably the most important catalyst for progress in any scientific discipline. Plant Methods’ goal is to stimulate the development and adoption of new and improved techniques and research tools and, where appropriate, to promote consistency of methodologies for better integration of data from different laboratories.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信