4.8 Article

Machine Learning Approaches to Improve Three Basic Plant Phenotyping Tasks Using Three-Dimensional Point Clouds1[OPEN]

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 181, 期 4, 页码 1425-1440

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1104/pp.19.00524

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pew Charitable Trusts
  2. National Science Foundation [CAREER DBI-1846554]
  3. National Institutes of Health National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [1R01DC017695]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Developing automated methods to efficiently process large volumes of point cloud data remains a challenge for three-dimensional (3D) plant phenotyping applications. Here, we describe the development of machine learning methods to tackle three primary challenges in plant phenotyping: lamina/stem classification, lamina counting, and stem skeletonization. For classification, we assessed and validated the accuracy of our methods on a dataset of 54 3D shoot architectures, representing multiple growth conditions and developmental time points for two Solanaceous species, tomato (Solanum lycopersicum cv 75 m82D) and Nicotiana benthamiana. Using deep learning, we classified lamina versus stems with 97.8% accuracy. Critically, we also demonstrated the robustness of our method to growth conditions and species that have not been trained on, which is important in practical applications but is often untested. For lamina counting, we developed an enhanced region-growing algorithm to reduce oversegmentation; this method achieved 86.6% accuracy, outperforming prior methods developed for this problem. Finally, for stem skeletonization, we developed an enhanced tip detection technique, which ran an order of magnitude faster and generated more precise skeleton architectures than prior methods. Overall, our improvements enable higher throughput and accurate extraction of phenotypic properties from 3D point cloud data. Machine learning tools can improve plant phenotyping (e.g. lamina identification, stem skeletonization) using 3D point clouds.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据