Automating field‐based floral surveys with machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The abundance and diversity of flowering plant species are important indicators of pollinator habitat quality, but traditional field‐based surveying techniques are time‐intensive. Therefore, they are often biased due to under‐sampling and are difficult to scale. Aerial photography was collected across 10 sites located in and around Rouge National Urban Park, Toronto, Canada using a consumer‐grade drone. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to semantically segment, or identify and categorize, pixel clusters which represent flowers in the collected aerial imagery. Specifically, flowers of the dominant taxa found in the depauperate fall flowering plant community were surveyed. This included yellow flowering Solidago spp., white Symphyotrichum ericoides/lanceolatum and purple Symphyotrichum novae‐angliae . The CNN was trained using 930 m 2 of manually annotated data, ~1% of the mapped landscape. The trained CNN was tested on 20% of the manually annotated data concealed during training. In addition, it was externally validated by comparing the predicted drone‐derived floral abundance metrics (i.e. floral area (m 2 ) and the number of floral patches) to the field‐based count of floral units estimated for 34 4 m 2 plots. The CNN returned accurate multiclassification when evaluated against the testing data. It obtained a precision score of 0.769, a recall of 0.849, and an F1 score of 0.807. The automated floral abundance counting yielded estimates that were strongly correlated with field‐based manual counting. In addition, flower segmentation using the trained CNN was time‐efficient. On average, it took roughly the same amount of time to segment the flowers occurring in an entire drone scene as it took to complete the abundance count of a single quadrat. However, the training process, particularly manual data annotation, was the most time‐consuming component of the study. Practical implication : Overall, the analysis provided valuable insights into automated flower classification and abundance estimation using drone imagery and machine learning. The results demonstrate that these tools can be used to provide accurate and scalable estimates of pollinator habitat quality. Further research should consider diverse wildflower systems to develop the generalizability of the methods.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".