Cited by 312Smart Agriculture and AIRemote Sensing in AgricultureAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Ear density estimation from high resolution RGB imagery using deep learning technique

Madec, Simon, Jin, Xiuliang, Lu, Hao, De Solan, Benoit, Liu, Shouyang, Duyme, Florent, Heritier, Emmanuelle, Baret, Frédéric·2019·Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

Abstract

Wheat ear density estimation is an appealing trait for plant breeders. Current manual counting is tedious and inefficient. In this study we investigated the potential of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to provide accurate ear density using nadir high spatial resolution RGB images. Two different approaches were investigated, either using the Faster-RCNN state-of-the-art object detector or with the TasselNet local count regression network. Both approaches performed very well (rRMSE≈6%) when applied over the same conditions as those prevailing for the calibration of the models. However, Faster-RCNN was more robust when applied to a dataset acquired at a later stage with ears and background showing a different aspect because of the higher maturity of the plants. Optimal spatial resolution for Faster-RCNN was around 0.3 mm allowing to acquire RGB images from a UAV platform for high-throughput phenotyping of large experiments. Comparison of the estimated ear density with in-situ manual counting shows reasonable agreement considering the relatively small sampling area used for both methods. Faster-RCNN and in-situ counting had high and similar heritability (H²≈85%), demonstrating that ear density derived from high resolution RGB imagery could replace the traditional counting method.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.10.013

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Models for automated plant phenotyping are typically trained on data collected in a limited number of regions, even for crops grown worldwide such as wheat.

    “These models are typically trained on data collected in a limited number of regions, even for crops grown worldwide such as wheat (Madec et al., 2019; Xiong et al., 2019; Ubbens et al., 2020; Ayalew et al., 2020).”

    From WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts (2020) · cites this paper as Madec et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Madec, S., Jin, X., Lu, H., De Solan, B., Liu, S., Duyme, F., Heritier, E., & Baret, F.
Affiliations
  • Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR)
  • Arvalis - Institut du Végétal (FR)
Corresponding author
Madec, Simon
Venue
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
264
Pages
225-234
ISSN
0168-1923 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2899128648
Cited by
312
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 13
FWCI
19.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Agricultural and Forest Meteorology (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Programme d’investissement d’Avenir (ANR-11-INBS-012)
  • Breedwheat (ANR-10-BTR-03)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Smart Agriculture and AI
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Remote Sensing in Agriculture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
convolutional neural networks, UAV imagery, high-throughput phenotyping, heritability, object detection, plant breeding

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review