Segmentation of vegetation and microplots in aerial agriculture images: A survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Because of the increasing global population, changing climate, and consumer demands for safe, environmentally friendly, and high‐quality food, plant breeders strive for higher yield cultivars by monitoring specific plant phenotypes. Developing new crop cultivars and monitoring through current methods is time‐consuming, sometimes subjective, and based on subsampling of microplots. High‐throughput phenotyping using unmanned aerial vehicle‐acquired aerial orthomosaic images of breeding trials improves and simplifies this labor‐intensive process. To perform per‐microplot phenotype analysis from such imagery, it is necessary to identify and localize individual microplots in the orthomosaics. This paper reviews the key concepts of recent studies and possible future developments regarding vegetation segmentation and microplot segmentation. The studies are presented in two main categories: (a) general vegetation segmentation using vegetation‐index‐based thresholding, learning‐based, and deep‐learning‐based methods; and (b) microplot segmentation based on machine learning and image processing methods. In this study, we performed a literature review to extract the algorithms that have been developed in vegetation and microplots segmentation studies. Based on our search criteria, we retrieved 92 relevant studies from five electronic databases. We investigated these selected studies carefully, summarized the methods, and provided some suggestions for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".