Deep learning‐ and image processing‐based methods for automatic estimation of leaf herbivore damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quantifying the intensity of leaf herbivory pressure is crucial for understanding the interaction between plants and herbivores in both applied and basic science. Visual estimates and digital analysis have been commonly used to estimate leaf herbivore damage but are time‐consuming which limits the amount of data that can be collected and prevent answering big picture questions that require large‐scale sampling of herbivory pressure. Recent developments in deep learning have provided a potential tool for automatic collection of ecological data from various sources. However, most applications have focused on identification and counting, and there is a lack of deep learning tools for quantitative estimation of leaf herbivore damage. Here, we trained generative adversarial networks (GANs) to predict the intact status of damaged leaves and applied image processing technique to estimate the area and percentage of leaf damage. We first described procedures for collecting leaf images, training GAN models, predicting intact leaves and calculating leaf area, with a Python package provided to enable hands‐on application of these procedures. Then, we collected a large leaf data set to train a universal deep learning model and developed an online app HerbiEstim to allow direct use of pretrained models to estimate herbivory damage of leaves. We tested these methods using both simulated and real leaf damage data. The procedures provided in our study greatly improved the efficiency of leaf herbivore damage estimation. Our test demonstrated that the reconstruction of damaged leaf image resembled the ground‐truth image with a similarity of 98.8%. The estimation of leaf herbivore damage exhibited a high accuracy with an averaged root mean square error of 1.6% and had a general applicability to different plant taxa and leaf shapes. Overall, our work demonstrated the feasibility of applying deep learning techniques to quantify leaf herbivory intensity. The use of GANs allows automatic estimation of leaf damage, representing a major advantage of the method. The Python package and the online app with pre‐trained models will facilitate the use of our method for the analysis of large data sets of plant–herbivore interactions.
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".