Detecting flowers on imagery with computer vision to improve continental scale grassland biodiversity surveying
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large‐scale biodiversity monitoring is essential for assessing biodiversity trends, yet traditional surveying methods are limited in the spatial/temporal scale they can cover. Recent technological developments have led to computer vision‐based species identification tools, such as the Pl@ntNet application. Increasing accuracy of such algorithms presents an opportunity of integrating computer vision into larger monitoring schemes and could lead to automating ground‐based evidence provision related to agri‐environmental measures (e.g. flower strips, field margins). However, images from surveys or farmer declarations do not live up to the standards of current applications. In order to integrate these automated methods into biodiversity monitoring, more generalized models are needed. We create a dataset using 500 manually delineated images of vegetation patches in European grasslands taken during the Land Use/cover Area Survey (LUCAS) grassland module. We train the Faster R‐CNN model to detect and extract individual flower objects. Using this model, we extract the abundance of flowers in an image, analyse their colour distribution, and use the Pl@ntNet application to identify the species of the individual flowers detected. The best model reaches precision and recall of 0.89/0.61 and predicts 1377 flowers on the 100 test images distributed between 10 colours. Using Pl@ntNet, only 52 flowers were identified with a certainty score above 0.5 due to the limitations in image size and quality. Of these flowers, 30% were correctly automatically identified at the species level and 42% at the genus level. The results show that we can automatically extract valuable information on floral abundances, colours, and sizes from images of vegetation patches, though in most cases better images are needed for species identification. Despite limitations with image quality, integrating this workflow into large‐scale monitoring could speed up the sampling process and allow for better spatial and temporal data on floral diversity and abundance.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it