Cited by 157Smart Agriculture and AIAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection

TasselNetv2: in-field counting of wheat spikes with context-augmented local regression networks

Open access
Xiong, Haipeng, Cao, Zhiguo, Lu, Hao, Madec, Simon, Liu, Liang, Shen, Chunhua·2019·Plant Methods

Abstract

Background: Grain yield of wheat is greatly associated with the population of wheat spikes, i.e., $$spike~number~\text {m}^{-2}$$spikenumberm-2. To obtain this index in a reliable and efficient way, it is necessary to count wheat spikes accurately and automatically. Currently computer vision technologies have shown great potential to automate this task effectively in a low-end manner. In particular, counting wheat spikes is a typical visual counting problem, which is substantially studied under the name of object counting in Computer Vision. TasselNet, which represents one of the state-of-the-art counting approaches, is a convolutional neural network-based local regression model, and currently benchmarks the best record on counting maize tassels. However, when applying TasselNet to wheat spikes, it cannot predict accurate counts when spikes partially present. Results: In this paper, we make an important observation that the counting performance of local regression networks can be significantly improved via adding visual context to the local patches. Meanwhile, such context can be treated as part of the receptive field without increasing the model capacity. We thus propose a simple yet effective contextual extension of TasselNet—TasselNetv2. If implementing TasselNetv2 in a fully convolutional form, both training and inference can be greatly sped up by reducing redundant computations. In particular, we collected and labeled a large-scale wheat spikes counting (WSC) dataset, with 1764 high-resolution images and 675,322 manually-annotated instances. Extensive experiments show that, TasselNetv2 not only achieves state-of-the-art performance on the WSC dataset ($$91.01\%$$91.01% counting accuracy) but also is more than an order of magnitude faster than TasselNet (13.82 fps on $$912\times 1216$$912×1216 images). The generality of TasselNetv2 is further demonstrated by advancing the state of the art on both the Maize Tassels Counting and ShanghaiTech Crowd Counting datasets. Conclusions: This paper describes TasselNetv2 for counting wheat spikes, which simultaneously addresses two important use cases in plant counting: improving the counting accuracy without increasing model capacity, and improving efficiency without sacrificing accuracy. It is promising to be deployed in a real-time system with high-throughput demand. In particular, TasselNetv2 can achieve sufficiently accurate results when training from scratch with small networks, and adopting larger pre-trained networks can further boost accuracy. In practice, one can trade off the performance and efficiency according to certain application scenarios. Code and models are made available at: https://tinyurl.com/TasselNetv2.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13007-019-0537-2

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 Xiong et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. [3]Ferrante A Cartelle J Savin R Slafer GA Yield determination, interplay between major components and yield stability in a traditional and a contemporary wheat across a wide range of environments Field Crops Res 2017 203 114 127 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.12.028 · DOI
  2. [4]Zhang C, Li H, Wang X, Yang X. Cross-scene crowd counting via deep convolutional neural networks. In: Proc. IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV), 2015. p. 833–41.
  3. [5]Zhang Y, Zhou D, Chen S, Gao S, Ma Y. Single-image crowd counting via multi-column convolutional neural network. In: Proc. IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), 2016. p. 589–97.
  4. [6]Oñoro-Rubio Daniel López-Sastre Roberto J. Towards Perspective-Free Object Counting with Deep Learning Computer Vision – ECCV 2016 2016 Cham Springer International Publishing 615 629
  5. [7]Xie W Noble JA Zisserman A Microscopy cell counting and detection with fully convolutional regression networks Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng Imaging Vis 2018 6 3 283 292 10.1080/21681163.2016.1149104 · DOI
  6. [8]Arteta Carlos Lempitsky Victor Zisserman Andrew Counting in the Wild Computer Vision – ECCV 2016 2016 Cham Springer International Publishing 483 498
  7. [9]Lu H Cao Z Xiao Y Zhuang B Shen C TasselNet: counting maize tassels in the wild via local counts regression network Plant Methods 2017 13 1 79 95 10.1186/s13007-017-0224-0 29118821 PMC5664836 · DOI
  8. [10]Aich S, Josuttes A, Ovsyannikov I, Strueby K, Ahmed I, Duddu HS, Pozniak C, Shirtliffe S, Stavness I. Deepwheat: Estimating phenotypic traits from crop images with deep learning. In: Proc. IEEE winter conference on applications of computer vision (WACV), 2018. p. 323–32.
  9. [11]Rahnemoonfar M Sheppard C Deep count: fruit counting based on deep simulated learning Sensors 2017 17 4 905 10.3390/s17040905 PMC5426829 28425947 · DOI
  10. [12]Chen SW Skandan SS Dcunha S Das J Okon E Qu C Taylor CJ Kumar V Counting apples and oranges with deep learning: a data driven approach IEEE Robot Autom Lett 2017 2 2 781 788 10.1109/LRA.2017.2651944 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [13]Fernandez-Gallego JA Kefauver SC Gutiérrez NA Nieto-Taladriz MT Araus JL Wheat ear counting in-field conditions: high throughput and low-cost approach using RGB images Plant Methods 2018 14 1 22 10.1186/s13007-018-0289-4 29568319 PMC5857137 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [14]Li Q Cai J Berger B Okamoto M Miklavcic SJ Detecting spikes of wheat plants using neural networks with laws texture energy Plant Methods 2017 13 1 83 10.1186/s13007-017-0231-1 29046709 PMC5640952 · DOI
  13. [15]Alharbi N, Zhou J, Wang W. Automatic counting of wheat spikes from wheat growth images. In: International conference on pattern recognition applications and methods. 2018. p. 346–55.
  14. [16]Zhou C Liang D Yang X Yang H Yue J Yang G Wheat ears counting in field conditions based on multi-feature optimization and TWSVM Front Plant Sci 2018 8 1024 10.3389/fpls.2018.01024 PMC6053621 30057587 · DOI
  15. [17]Zhou C Liang D Yang X Xu B Yang G Recognition of wheat spike from field based phenotype platform using multi-sensor fusion and improved maximum entropy segmentation algorithms Remote Sens 2018 10 2 246 10.3390/rs10020246 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [18]Hasan MM Chopin JP Laga H Miklavcic SJ Detection and analysis of wheat spikes using convolutional neural networks Plant Methods 2018 14 1 100 10.1186/s13007-018-0366-8 30459822 PMC6236889 · DOI
  17. [19]Madec S Jin X Lu H De Solan B Liu S Duyme F Heritier E Baret F Ear density estimation from high resolution RGB imagery using deep learning technique Agric Forest Meteorol 2019 264 225 234 10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.10.013 · DOI · Paper page
  18. [20]Girshick R, Donahue J, Darrell T, Malik J. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. In: Proc. IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), 2014. p. 580–7.
  19. [21]Ghosal S Zheng B Chapman SC Potgieter AB Jordan DR Wang X Singh AK Singh A Hirafuji M Ninomiya S A weakly supervised deep learning framework for sorghum head detection and counting Plant Phenomics 2019 2019 1525874 10.34133/2019/1525874 PMC7706102 33313521 · DOI
  20. [22]Lin T-Y, Goyal P, Girshick R, He K, Dollár P. Focal loss for dense object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2017. p. 2980–8.
  21. [23]Li Y, Zhang X, Chen D. CSRNet: Dilated convolutional neural networks for understanding the highly congested scenes. In: Proc. IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), 2018. p. 1091–100.
  22. [24]Shen Z, Xu Y, Ni B, Wang M, Hu J, Yang X. Crowd counting via adversarial cross-scale consistency pursuit. In: Proc. IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR) 2018.
  23. [25]Sindagi VA, Patel VM. Generating high-quality crowd density maps using contextual pyramid cnns. In: Proc. IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV), 2017. p. 1879–88.
  24. [26]Cohen JP, Boucher G, Glastonbury CA, Lo HZ, Bengio Y. Count-ception: Counting by fully convolutional redundant counting. In: Proc. IEEE international conference on computer vision workshop (ICCVW), 2017. p. 18–26.
  25. [27]Girshick R. Fast R-CNN. In: Proc. IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (ICCV), 2015. p. 1440–8.
  26. [28]Lu H Cao Z Xiao Y Fang Z Zhu Y Toward good practices for fine-grained maize cultivar identification with filter-specific convolutional activations IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 2018 15 2 430 442 10.1109/TASE.2016.2616485 · DOI
  27. [29]Seguí S, Pujol O, Vitrià J. Learning to count with deep object features. In: Proc. IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops (CVPRW), 2015. p. 90–6.
  28. [30]Eggert C, Brehm S, Winschel A, Dan Z, Lienhart R. A closer look: Small object detection in faster r-cnn. In: Proc. IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo (ICME), 2017. p. 421–6.
  29. [31]Lin M, Chen Q, Yan S. Network in network. In: Proc. International conference on learning representations (ICLR) 2013.
  30. [32]Long J, Shelhamer E, Darrell T. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In: Proc. IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), 2015. p. 3431–40. 27244717
  31. [33]Howard AG, Zhu M, Chen B, Kalenichenko D, Wang W, Weyand T, Andreetto M, Adam H. Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861 2017. · arXiv
  32. [34]Zhang X, Zhou X, Lin M, Sun J. Shufflenet: An extremely efficient convolutional neural network for mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018. p. 6848–6856.
  33. [35]Vedaldi A, Lenc K. MatConvNet: Convolutional neural networks for MATLAB. In: Proc. ACM international conference on multimedia, 2015. p. 689–92.
  34. [36]He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification. In: Proc. IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV), 2015. p. 1026–34.
  35. [37]Ioffe S, Szegedy C. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In: Proc. international conference on machine learning (ICML), 2015. p. 448–56.
  36. [38]Zhou B, Khosla A, Lapedriza A, Oliva A, Torralba A. Object detectors emerge in deep scene CNNs. In: Proc. international conference on learning representations (ICLR) 2014.
  37. [39]Luo W, Li Y, Urtasun R, Zemel R. Understanding the effective receptive field in deep convolutional neural networks. In: Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS), 2016. p. 4898–906.
  38. [41]Lu H Cao Z Xiao Y Li Y Zhu Y Region-based colour modelling for joint crop and maize tassel segmentation Biosyst Eng 2016 147 139 150 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.04.007 · DOI
  39. [42]Lu H Cao Z Xiao Y Fang Z Zhu Y Xian K Fine-grained maize tassel trait characterization with multi-view representations Comput Electron Agric 2015 118 143 158 10.1016/j.compag.2015.08.027 · DOI
  40. [44]Lempitsky V, Zisserman A. Learning to count objects in images. In: Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS), 2010. p. 1324–32.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xiong, H., Cao, Z., Lu, H., Madec, S., Liu, L., & Shen, C.
Affiliations
  • Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
  • EMMAH - Environnement Méditerranéen et Modélisation des Agro-Hydrosystèmes (FR)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
Venue
Plant Methods
Published
2019-12
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
150-150
ISSN
1746-4811 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2994751959
Cited by
157
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 13
FWCI
12.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Plant Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61876211)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Smart Agriculture and AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Keywords
receptive fields, object counting, plant counting, wheat grain yield, fully convolutional network, real-time counting, crowd counting

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