Automatic counting of mounds on UAV images: combining instance segmentation and patch-level correction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Site preparation by mounding is a commonly used silvicultural treatment that improves tree growth conditions by mechanically creating planting microsites called mounds. Following site preparation, the next critical step is to count the number of mounds, which provides forest managers with a precise estimate of the number of seedlings required for a given plantation block. Counting the number of mounds is generally conducted through manual field surveys by forestry workers, which is costly and prone to errors, especially for large areas. To address this issue, we present a novel framework exploiting advances in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) imaging and computer vision to estimate the number of mounds on a planting block accurately. The proposed framework comprises two main components. First, we exploit a visual recognition method based on a deep learning algorithm for multiple object detection by segmentation. This enables a preliminary counting of visible mounds, as well as other frequently seen objects (e.g., trees, debris, accumulation of water), to be used to characterize the planting block. Second, since visual recognition could be limited by several perturbation factors (e.g., mound erosion, occlusion), we employ a machine learning estimation function to predict the final number of mounds based on the local block properties extracted in the first stage. We evaluate the proposed framework on a new UAV dataset representing numerous planting blocks with varying features. The proposed method outperformed manual counting methods in terms of relative counting precision, indicating that it has the potential to be advantageous and efficient under challenging situations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".