Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 167 references

Predictive Modeling, Pattern Recognition, and Spatiotemporal Representations of Plant Growth in Simulated and Controlled Environments: A Comprehensive Review

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review argues that plant growth modeling is shifting from deterministic regression-based forecasting to probabilistic, data-driven generative models that incorporate dynamic environmental feedback.

desk verdict A useful, readable survey of plant growth modeling that overclaims comprehensiveness and supports its main trend claim with curation rather than evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10538 v3 pith:3LGRFDGO submitted 2024-12-13 q-bio.QM cs.CV

Mohamed Debbagh , Shangpeng Sun , Mark Lefsrud This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QMcs.CV
keywords plantgrowthmodelingpatternrecognitioncontrolledenvironmentagriculturegenerativemodelsspatiotemporalhigh-throughputphenotypingfunctional-structuralBayesianinference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review tries to establish that plant growth modeling in controlled environments is undergoing a paradigm shift: away from frequentist, experiment-driven regression models that treat trait trajectories as fixed functions, and toward probabilistic, data-driven models that represent growth as a stochastic process updated by environmental feedback. Across 51 method papers and 22 temporal datasets, it organizes the field into scalar-trait regressions, latent representation models such as recurrent and state-space models, functional-structural plant models, and computer vision approaches that synthesize 2D and 3D plant structures. Its central argument is that next-frame image prediction and conditional generative models, especially those whose conditioning vector encodes the full environmental history, are the most promising route to realistic, continuously updatable plant growth simulation. The review also argues that the decisive bottleneck is data: longitudinal, multi-modal, standardized datasets spanning whole growth cycles are scarce. A sympathetic reader would take away a map of the field and a specific research agenda rather than a single new algorithm.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a two-paradigm contrast, frequentist experiment-centric versus probabilistic data-driven, applied to a taxonomy of plant growth models: regressions, hierarchical regressions, latent representation models, functional-structural plant models, L-systems, convolutional recurrent networks, and conditional generative models. The load-bearing object is the conditional generative model with a sequence-informed conditioning vector: an RNN encodes the environmental history $c(\tau)$ for $\tau=[0,t]$ into a conditioning variable $x$, which guides a latent sampler $p_\theta(z|x)$ and a decoder $p_\theta(y|z,x)$ that synthesizes future plant frames. This object carries the argument because it is where uncertainty, dynamic environmental feedback, and structured 2D or 3D output come together, and it is the clearest expression of the review's claim that plant growth modeling should be treated as a regularized, probabilistic image-synthesis problem rather than a fixed function fitting problem.

What would settle it

A systematic literature search with published inclusion criteria that finds most recent plant growth forecasting papers still use deterministic regressions or crop models would undercut the claimed shift; likewise, a controlled comparison on a shared longitudinal dataset in which sequence-conditioned generative models fail to beat simpler deterministic baselines on trait prediction accuracy would refute the practical core of the argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a synthesis: the field of plant growth pattern recognition is moving from a frequentist, experiment-centric paradigm toward a data-driven, probabilistic paradigm. The review classifies deterministic process models such as CERES and DSSAT, regression and hierarchical regression approaches, PCA and neural latent representation models, state-space models, functional-structural plant models based on differential growth and L-systems, and computer vision methods for structural output through time. Its most pointed claim is that deterministic mappings from input images to future frames are ill-posed because plant growth trajectories are not unique, and that conditional generative models address this by learning a latent distribution over possible plant scenes. The most advanced direction it identifies is a sequence-informed conditional generative model in which a vector of environmental parameters over the interval from the start of growth to the current time is encoded by a recurrent network and used as the conditioning signal that guides frame synthesis, allowing the model to produce realistic future plant images that respond to compounding environmental conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The review's map of the field and its claimed trajectory depend on the assumption that the 51 method papers and 22 datasets it selected, without a published search protocol, fairly represent the whole field; the authors themselves concede that a full systematic review is not possible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the review's direction is right, near-term plant growth forecasting will increasingly be framed as image-synthesis and frame-prediction tasks rather than scalar curve fitting.
  • Models that ignore environmental history will be out-performed by sequence-conditioned generative models on long-horizon predictions, especially under changing conditions.
  • Dataset construction becomes a first-class research problem: high-frequency, multi-modal, longitudinal datasets with standardized metadata are prerequisites for the proposed models.
  • Hybrid approaches that inject mechanistic knowledge from functional-structural plant models into data-driven generative frameworks will be needed to restore interpretability.
  • Continuous frame synthesis opens practical applications in anomaly detection, plant-environment simulation, and digital twinning of controlled environment crops.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same conditional-generation logic could generalize to open-field crops, but weather variability would likely make the environmental-encoding step harder than the controlled-environment cases surveyed here.
  • A direct benchmark comparing deterministic next-frame models with sequence-informed conditional generative models on one shared longitudinal dataset would settle the practical value of the central claim faster than another review.
  • If the dataset gap is truly the bottleneck, then publishing a single high-frequency, multi-modal, standardized benchmark may move the field more than any individual model architecture.
  • The taxonomy suggests a transferable idea: anomaly detection methods developed for video prediction could be adapted to plant growth monitoring by treating deviations from generated growth scenes as early warning signals.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This review surveys 51 method papers and 22 temporal datasets published between 2015 and 2025 on plant growth modeling, organizing the literature into experiment-centric frequentist approaches (regressions, hierarchical regressions) and data-driven probabilistic/generative approaches (latent representation models, state-space models, conditional generative models). It covers 1D scalar trait forecasting and 2D/3D structured representations via functional-structural plant models and computer vision-based frame prediction and synthesis. The paper claims to provide a comprehensive examination of the field and argues that the reviewed works demonstrate a shift toward data-driven, probabilistic generative models with dynamic environmental feedback, recommending hybrid knowledge-driven/data-driven approaches and addressing dataset gaps.

Significance. The paper's main contribution is a structured taxonomy of modeling paradigms for spatiotemporal plant growth, with technically accurate summaries of regressions, hierarchical models, latent representation models, state-space models, FSPMs, and conditional generative models. The perspective on dataset gaps and the recommendation to integrate domain knowledge are reasonable and actionable. However, the review's significance as a comprehensive field map is undercut by the undocumented selection protocol and the lack of any temporal evidence for the claimed shift; these are the load-bearing claims that need revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, §2.3, §1.4] The claim of a 'rigorous screening process' in §2.1 is contradicted by the admission in §2.3 that 'a full systemic review is not possible' and by the absence of search strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a screening protocol. Since the title, abstract, and §1.4 explicitly promise a 'comprehensive examination,' the authors must either provide a reproducible systematic methodology or substantially soften the comprehensiveness claims throughout the manuscript, including §6.
  2. [§5.1, Figure 2] The assertion that 'The works presented in this review demonstrate a shift towards the latter' is not supported by the exhibited evidence. Figure 2 reports only category counts with no temporal axis, and no publication-year analysis of modeling approaches is provided anywhere in the paper. The shift claim should be removed or reworded as a perspective, or it should be supported by a figure or table showing the distribution of modeling paradigms by year of publication.
  3. [Table 1] The GrowliFlower dataset is attributed to reference [45], which is Uchiyama et al. (KO-MATSUNA); the actual source by Kierdorf et al. is missing from the reference list. This mis-citation must be corrected for the dataset repository to be reliable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1.1, Eq. (5)] The notation y_{ijt}(t) is redundant because the subscript t already indexes time, and the indices i, j, t are not defined before use; please clarify the notation and define all indices explicitly.
  2. [§3.1.1, Eq. (8)] The word 'Indvidual' should be 'Individual.'
  3. [§2.3] The sentence 'the number of works available for a full systemic review is not possible' is ungrammatical; consider revising to 'a full systematic review is not possible given the limited number of qualifying works.'
  4. [§3.2.2] The statement that 'few studies have applied these architectures towards temporal plant trait modeling' lacks a citation; please provide supporting references or soften the claim.
  5. [§3.1.2] The claim that temporal regression models are 'typically developed under open-field conditions' is not cited; please add a reference or qualify the statement.
  6. [§4.2.2, Figure 8 caption] The sentence 'The network structures explored within the domain of plant growth modeling typically consists of a probabilistic latent variable encoder and a deterministic decoder' has a subject-verb disagreement; 'structures' should take a plural verb.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's claims are evaluative and sample-relative, and its only self-citation is an independently published example, not a load-bearing derivation.

full rationale

This paper is a narrative review rather than a derivation, so there is no fitted-parameter-then-prediction chain or definitional identity to expose. The central assertions—that regression models have post-hoc limitations, that probabilistic/generative models address dynamic updating, and that future work should pursue hybrid knowledge/data-driven approaches—are supported by external literature and by the paper's own arguments, not by citing its own conclusions. The only self-citation is to the first author's prior work [137], used as one example of a sequence-informed conditional generative model (Section 4.2.2) and as an illustration of continuous frame synthesis (Section 5.3.3); that work is peer-reviewed and externally checkable, so it does not function as an unverified, load-bearing self-reference. The 'shift' statement in Section 5.1 is explicitly about 'the works presented in this review,' so it does not claim to be an independently sampled field-level inference; the acknowledged non-systematic selection (Section 2.3) is a generalizability limitation, not a circular reduction. No step in the paper equates its conclusions with its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This review introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. The conclusions depend on the representativeness of the selected literature and on the modeling assumptions embedded in the methods being surveyed, both of which are identified above.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Plant growth trajectories can be represented as a continuous-time function y(t) = f(t) + epsilon(t) with additive noise (Eq. 1).
    This underlies the review's entire treatment of temporal regression and state-space models in Section 3.
  • domain assumption The screened set of 51 method papers and 22 temporal datasets is representative of the field.
    Section 2.1 defines the set, and Section 2.3 admits a full systematic review is not possible, so all conclusions about the field depend on this representativeness.
  • ad hoc to paper The frequentist-versus-probabilistic dichotomy is the correct organizing framework for plant growth modeling.
    Figure 1 and the narrative structure of Section 3 impose this binary, which downplays hybrid and mechanistic approaches that do not fit neatly into either category.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predictive Modeling, Pattern Recognition, and Spatiotemporal Representations of Plant Growth in Simulated and Controlled Environments: A Comprehensive Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3LGRFDGO

@misc{pith2026241210538,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predictive Modeling, Pattern Recognition, and Spatiotemporal Representations of Plant Growth in Simulated and Controlled Environments: A Comprehensive Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3LGRFDGO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10538}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate predictions and representations of plant growth patterns in simulated and controlled environments are important for addressing various challenges in plant phenomics research. This review explores various works on state-of-the-art predictive pattern recognition techniques, focusing on the spatiotemporal modeling of plant traits and the integration of dynamic environmental interactions. We provide a comprehensive examination of deterministic, probabilistic, and generative modeling approaches, emphasizing their applications in high-throughput phenotyping and simulation-based plant growth forecasting. Key topics include regressions and neural network-based representation models for the task of forecasting, limitations of existing experiment-based deterministic approaches, and the need for dynamic frameworks that incorporate uncertainty and evolving environmental feedback. This review surveys advances in 2D and 3D structured data representations through functional-structural plant models and conditional generative models. We offer a perspective on opportunities for future works, emphasizing the integration of domain-specific knowledge to data-driven methods, improvements to available datasets, and the implementation of these techniques toward real-world applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10538 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of two modeling paradigms in plant growth research. The Frequentist ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Breakdown of publications reviewed, categorized by modeling approaches (left) and dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hierarchical logistic regression modeling of typical plant growth with fixed and random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Directed graph models (folded) of the typical recurrent neural network (RNN) pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: High-level conceptual overview of a context driven simulation framework for structured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Demonstration of plant-like structures generated using L-Systems with varying parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Directed graph model (unfolded) of a Convolutional Recurrent Neural Network (CRNN) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Conditional generative model architecture for guided plant scene simulation. The frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Directed graph model (folded) of a sequence-informed method for incorporating compound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

167 extracted references · 85 canonical work pages

  1. [45]

    An easy-to-setup 3d phenotyping platform for komatsuna dataset

    Hideaki Uchiyama, Shunsuke Sakurai, Masashi Mishima, Daisaku Arita, Takashi Okayasu, Atsushi Shimada, and Rin-ichiro Taniguchi. An easy-to-setup 3d phenotyping platform for komatsuna dataset. In2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW), pages 2038–2045, 2017. doi:10.1109/ICCVW.2017.239

    work page doi:10.1109/iccvw.2017.239 2017

  2. [137]

    Generative plant growth simulation from sequence-informed environmental condi- tions

    Mohamed Debbagh, Yixue Liu, Zhouzhou Zheng, Xintong Jiang, Shangpeng Sun, and Mark Lefsrud. Generative plant growth simulation from sequence-informed environmental condi- tions. InArtificial Neural Networks in Pattern Recognition, pages 308–319, Cham, 2024. Springer Nature Switzerland. ISBN 978-3-031-71602-7. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-71602-7 26

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-71602-7 2024

  3. [1]

    Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023

    Alisher Mirzabaev, Lennart Olsson, Rachel Bezner Kerr, Prajal Pradhan, Marta Guadalupe Rivera Ferre, and Hermann Lotze-Campen.Climate Change and Food Systems, pages 511–529. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023. ISBN 978-3-031-15703-5. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-15703-5 27

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-15703-5 2023

  4. [2]

    O’Sullivan, G.D

    C.A. O’Sullivan, G.D. Bonnett, C.L. McIntyre, Z. Hochman, and A.P. Wasson. Strategies to improve the productivity, product diversity and profitability of urban agriculture.Agricultural Systems, 174:133–144, 2019. ISSN 0308-521X. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2019.05.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2019.05.007 2019

  5. [3]

    Future food-production systems: vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture.Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 13(1):13–26,

    Kurt Benke and Bruce Tomkins. Future food-production systems: vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture.Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 13(1):13–26,

  6. [4]

    High- throughput physiological phenotyping and screening system for the characterization of plant– environment interactions.The Plant Journal, 89(4):839–850, 2017

    Ofer Halperin, Alem Gebremedhin, Rony Wallach, and Menachem Moshelion. High- throughput physiological phenotyping and screening system for the characterization of plant– environment interactions.The Plant Journal, 89(4):839–850, 2017. doi:10.1111/tpj.13425

    work page doi:10.1111/tpj.13425 2017

  7. [5]

    Innovations in plant genetics adapting agriculture to climate change.Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 56:168–173, 2020

    Robert J Henry. Innovations in plant genetics adapting agriculture to climate change.Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 56:168–173, 2020. ISSN 1369-5266. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2019.11.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2019.11.004 2020

  8. [6]

    Opportunities and limits of controlled-environment plant phenotyping for climate response traits.Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 135(1):1–16, 2022

    Anna Langstroff, Marc C Heuermann, Andreas Stahl, and Astrid Junker. Opportunities and limits of controlled-environment plant phenotyping for climate response traits.Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 135(1):1–16, 2022. doi:10.1007/s00122-021-03892-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00122-021-03892-1 2022

Show all 167 references
  1. [7]

    Vishwas Anant Bapat, P. B. Kavi Kishor, Naravula Jalaja, Shri Mohan Jain, and Suprasanna Penna. Plant cell cultures: Biofactories for the production of bioactive compounds.Agronomy, 13(3), 2023. ISSN 2073-4395. doi:10.3390/agronomy13030858

    2023 doi

  2. [8]

    Hassan, Mukesh Kumar Awasthi, Babu Gajendran, Monika Sharma, Min-Kyu Ji, and El-Sayed Salama

    Yang Yang, Sedky H.A. Hassan, Mukesh Kumar Awasthi, Babu Gajendran, Monika Sharma, Min-Kyu Ji, and El-Sayed Salama. The recent progress on the bioactive compounds from algal biomass for human health applications.Food Bioscience, 51:102267, 2023. ISSN 2212-4292. doi:10.1016/j.f...

    2023

  3. [9]

    Tran, Alexandra Burgess, Ian Fisk, Michelle Watt, Marc Escrib´ a-Gelonch, Herve This, John Culton, and Volker Hes- sel

    Mai Trinh Phuong Nguyen, Matthew Knowling, Nam N. Tran, Alexandra Burgess, Ian Fisk, Michelle Watt, Marc Escrib´ a-Gelonch, Herve This, John Culton, and Volker Hes- sel. Space farming: Horticulture systems on spacecraft and outlook to planetary space exploration.Plant Physiolo...

    2023 doi

  4. [10]

    Lefers, Mark Tester, and Kyle J

    Ryan M. Lefers, Mark Tester, and Kyle J. Lauersen. Emerging technologies to enable sustainable controlled environment agriculture in the extreme environments of middle east- north africa coastal regions.Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 2020. ISSN 1664-462X. doi:10.3389/fpls.202...

    2020

  5. [11]

    Biomass production of the eden iss space greenhouse in antarctica during the 2018 experiment phase

    Paul Zabel, Conrad Zeidler, Vincent Vrakking, Markus Dorn, and Daniel Schubert. Biomass production of the eden iss space greenhouse in antarctica during the 2018 experiment phase. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 2020. ISSN 1664-462X. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.00656

    2018

  6. [12]

    Long, Jonathan P

    Bedrich Benes, Kaiyu Guan, Meagan Lang, Stephen P. Long, Jonathan P. Lynch, Amy Marshall-Col´ on, Bin Peng, James Schnable, Lee J. Sweetlove, and Matthew J. Turk. Mul- tiscale computational models can guide experimentation and targeted measurements for crop improvement.The Pla...

    2020 doi

  7. [13]

    Großkinsky, Jesper Svensgaard, Svend Christensen, and Thomas Roitsch

    Dominik K. Großkinsky, Jesper Svensgaard, Svend Christensen, and Thomas Roitsch. Plant phenomics and the need for physiological phenotyping across scales to narrow the genotype-to- phenotype knowledge gap.Journal of Experimental Botany, 66(18):5429–5440, 07 2015. ISSN 0022-095...

    2015 doi

  8. [14]

    White, Pedro Andrade-Sanchez, Michael A

    Jeffrey W. White, Pedro Andrade-Sanchez, Michael A. Gore, Kevin F. Bronson, Terry A. Coffelt, Matthew M. Conley, Kenneth A. Feldmann, Andrew N. French, John T. Heun, Douglas J. Hunsaker, Matthew A. Jenks, Bruce A. Kimball, Robert L. Roth, Robert J. Strand, Kelly R. Thorp, Gera...

    2012 doi

  9. [15]

    Deery and Hamlyn G

    David M. Deery and Hamlyn G. Jones. Field phenomics: Will it enable crop improvement? Plant Phenomics, 2021:9871989, 2021. ISSN 2643-6515. doi:10.34133/2021/9871989

    2021 doi

  10. [16]

    Furbank, Jose A

    Robert T. Furbank, Jose A. Jimenez-Berni, Barbara George-Jaeggli, Andries B. Potgieter, and David M. Deery. Field crop phenomics: enabling breeding for radiation use efficiency and biomass in cereal crops.New Phytologist, 223(4):1714–1727, 2019. doi:10.1111/nph.15817

    2019 doi

  11. [17]

    Jos´ e Luis Araus and Jill E. Cairns. Field high-throughput phenotyping: the new crop breeding frontier.Trends in Plant Science, 19(1):52–61, 2014. ISSN 1360-1385. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2013.09.008

    2014 doi

  12. [18]

    A controlled environment agriculture with hydroponics: variants, parameters, methodologies and challenges for smart farming

    P Srivani, SH Manjula, et al. A controlled environment agriculture with hydroponics: variants, parameters, methodologies and challenges for smart farming. In2019 Fifteenth International Conference on Information Processing (ICINPRO), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2019. doi:10.1109/ICInPro4...

    2019

  13. [19]

    Mark Cooper, Carlos D Messina, Tom Tang, Carla Gho, Owen M Powell, Dean W Podlich, Frank Technow, and Graeme L Hammer. Predicting genotype×environment×manage- ment (g×e×m) interactions for the design of crop improvement strategies: integrating breeder, agronomist, and farmer p...

    2022 doi

  14. [20]

    Messina, F

    C.D. Messina, F. Technow, T. Tang, R. Totir, C. Gho, and M. Cooper. Leveraging biological insight and environmental variation to improve phenotypic prediction: Integrating crop growth 31 models (cgm) with whole genome prediction (wgp).European Journal of Agronomy, 100:151– 162...

    2018 doi

  15. [21]

    Genotype x environment x man- agement (gem) reciprocity and crop productivity.Frontiers in Agronomy, 4:800365, 2022

    Tariq Mahmood, Talaat Ahmed, and Richard Trethowan. Genotype x environment x man- agement (gem) reciprocity and crop productivity.Frontiers in Agronomy, 4:800365, 2022. doi:10.3389/fagro.2022.800365

    2022

  16. [22]

    Brukhin and N

    V. Brukhin and N. Morozova. Plant growth and development - basic knowledge and current views.Mathematical Modelling of Natural Phenomena, 6(2):1–53, 2011. doi:10.1051/mmnp/20116201

    2011

  17. [23]

    Plant development

    Bruce Alberts, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, and Peter Wal- ter. Plant development. InMolecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition. Garland Science, 2002. URLhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26922/

    2002

  18. [24]

    Future scenarios for plant phenotyping.Annual Review of Plant Biology, 64(Volume 64, 2013):267–291, 2013

    Fabio Fiorani and Ulrich Schurr. Future scenarios for plant phenotyping.Annual Review of Plant Biology, 64(Volume 64, 2013):267–291, 2013. ISSN 1545-2123. doi:10.1146/annurev- arplant-050312-120137

    2013 doi

  19. [25]

    Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2006

    Reza Hoshmand.Design of experiments for agriculture and the natural sciences. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2006. doi:10.1201/9781315276021

    2006 doi

  20. [26]

    CRC Press, 1989

    Filmore E Bender.Statistical methods for food and agriculture. CRC Press, 1989. doi:10.1201/9781003073116

    1989 doi

  21. [27]

    Forecasting plant and crop disease: An explo- rative study on current algorithms.Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 5(1), 2021

    Gianni Fenu and Francesca Maridina Malloci. Forecasting plant and crop disease: An explo- rative study on current algorithms.Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 5(1), 2021. ISSN 2504-2289. doi:10.3390/bdcc5010002

    2021 doi

  22. [28]

    Bruno Basso, Lin Liu, and Joe T. Ritchie. A comprehensive review of the ceres- wheat, -maize and -rice models’ performances. In Donald L. Sparks, editor,Advances in Agronomy, volume 136 ofAdvances in Agronomy, pages 27–132. Academic Press, 2016. doi:10.1016/bs.agron.2015.11.004

    2016 doi

  23. [29]

    The dssat cropping system model.European Journal of Agronomy, 18(3):235–265, 2003

    J.W Jones, G Hoogenboom, C.H Porter, K.J Boote, W.D Batchelor, L.A Hunt, P.W Wilkens, U Singh, A.J Gijsman, and J.T Ritchie. The dssat cropping system model.European Journal of Agronomy, 18(3):235–265, 2003. ISSN 1161-0301. doi:10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00107-7

    2003 doi

  24. [30]

    Assessment of climate change impact on water re- quirement and rice productivity.Rice Science, 30(4):276–293, 2023

    Konan Jean-Yves N’guessan, Botou Adahi, Arthur-Brice Konan-Waidhet, Satoh Masayoshi, and Nogbou Emmanuel Assidjo. Assessment of climate change impact on water re- quirement and rice productivity.Rice Science, 30(4):276–293, 2023. ISSN 1672-6308. doi:10.1016/j.rsci.2023.03.010

    2023 doi

  25. [31]

    Cambridge univer- sity press, 2003

    David JC MacKay.Information theory, inference and learning algorithms. Cambridge univer- sity press, 2003. doi:10.1017/S026357470426043X. 32

    2003 doi

  26. [32]

    Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018

    Richard McElreath.Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018. doi:10.1201/9781315372495

    2018 doi

  27. [33]

    Plant phenotyping: from bean weighing to image analysis.Plant methods, 11:1–11, 2015

    Achim Walter, Frank Liebisch, and Andreas Hund. Plant phenotyping: from bean weighing to image analysis.Plant methods, 11:1–11, 2015. doi:10.1186/s13007-015-0056-8

    2015 doi

  28. [34]

    High-throughput plant phenotyping platform (ht3p) as a novel tool for estimating agronomic traits from the lab to the field.Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 8,

    Daoliang Li, Chaoqun Quan, Zhaoyang Song, Xiang Li, Guanghui Yu, Cheng Li, and Akhter Muhammad. High-throughput plant phenotyping platform (ht3p) as a novel tool for estimating agronomic traits from the lab to the field.Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 8,

  29. [35]

    Applications of hyperspectral imaging in plant phenotyping.Trends in plant science, 27(3):301–315, 2022

    Rijad Sari´ c, Viet D Nguyen, Timothy Burge, Oliver Berkowitz, Martin Trt ´ ılek, James Whelan, Mathew G Lewsey, and Edhem ˇCustovi´ c. Applications of hyperspectral imaging in plant phenotyping.Trends in plant science, 27(3):301–315, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2021.12.003

    2022 doi

  30. [36]

    Forero, Harold F

    Manuel G. Forero, Harold F. Murcia, Dehyro M´ endez, and Juan Betancourt-Lozano. Lidar platform for acquisition of 3d plant phenotyping database.Plants, 11(17), 2022. ISSN 2223-

    2022

  31. [37]

    Thermal imaging: The digital eye facilitates high-throughput phenotyping traits of plant growth and stress responses.Science of The Total Environment, 899:165626, 2023

    Ting Wen, Jian-Hong Li, Qi Wang, Yang-Yang Gao, Ge-Fei Hao, and Bao-An Song. Thermal imaging: The digital eye facilitates high-throughput phenotyping traits of plant growth and stress responses.Science of The Total Environment, 899:165626, 2023. ISSN 0048-9697. doi:10.1016/j.s...

    2023

  32. [38]

    Leveraging image analysis for high- throughput plant phenotyping.Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 2019

    Sruti Das Choudhury, Ashok Samal, and Tala Awada. Leveraging image analysis for high- throughput plant phenotyping.Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 2019. ISSN 1664-462X. doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.00508

    2019

  33. [39]

    All roads lead to growth: imaging-based and biochemical methods to measure plant growth.Journal of Experimental Botany, 71(1):11–21, 09 2019

    Justyna Jadwiga Olas, Franziska Fichtner, and Federico Apelt. All roads lead to growth: imaging-based and biochemical methods to measure plant growth.Journal of Experimental Botany, 71(1):11–21, 09 2019. ISSN 0022-0957. doi:10.1093/jxb/erz406

    2019 doi

  34. [40]

    Ma- chine learning for high-throughput stress phenotyping in plants.Trends in plant science, 21 (2):110–124, 2016

    Arti Singh, Baskar Ganapathysubramanian, Asheesh Kumar Singh, and Soumik Sarkar. Ma- chine learning for high-throughput stress phenotyping in plants.Trends in plant science, 21 (2):110–124, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2015.10.015

    2016 doi

  35. [41]

    Chee, Andrew H

    Shangpeng Sun, Changying Li, Peng W. Chee, Andrew H. Paterson, Yu Jiang, Rui Xu, Jon S. Robertson, Jeevan Adhikari, and Tariq Shehzad. Three-dimensional photogrammet- ric mapping of cotton bolls in situ based on point cloud segmentation and clustering.IS- PRS Journal of Photog...

    2020 doi

  36. [42]

    Soybean-mvs: Annotated three-dimensional model dataset of whole growth pe- riod soybeans for 3d plant organ segmentation.Agriculture, 13(7), 2023

    Yongzhe Sun, Zhixin Zhang, Kai Sun, Shuai Li, Jianglin Yu, Linxiao Miao, Zhanguo Zhang, Yang Li, Hongjie Zhao, Zhenbang Hu, Dawei Xin, Qingshan Chen, and Rong- sheng Zhu. Soybean-mvs: Annotated three-dimensional model dataset of whole growth pe- riod soybeans for 3d plant orga...

    2023 doi

  37. [43]

    Pheno4d: A spatio-temporal dataset of maize and tomato plant point clouds for phenotyping and advanced plant analysis.PLOS ONE, 16(8):1–18, 08 2021

    David Schunck, Federico Magistri, Radu Alexandru Rosu, Andr´ e Cornelißen, Nived Che- brolu, Stefan Paulus, Jens L´ eon, Sven Behnke, Cyrill Stachniss, Heiner Kuhlmann, and Lasse Klingbeil. Pheno4d: A spatio-temporal dataset of maize and tomato plant point clouds for phenotypi...

    2021 doi

  38. [44]

    Topp, and Saket Navlakha

    Sam Sultan, Joseph Snider, Adam Conn, Mao Li, Christopher N. Topp, and Saket Navlakha. A statistical growth property of plant root architectures.Plant Phenomics, 2020, 2020. doi:10.34133/2020/2073723

    2020 doi

  39. [46]

    Pc4c capsi: Image data of capsicum plant growth in protected horticulture.Data in Brief, 55: 110735, 2024

    Namal Jayasuriya, Oula Ghannoum, Wen Hu, Norbert Klause, Weiguang Liang, and Yi Guo. Pc4c capsi: Image data of capsicum plant growth in protected horticulture.Data in Brief, 55: 110735, 2024. ISSN 2352-3409. doi:10.1016/j.dib.2024.110735

    2024

  40. [47]

    Shadrin, Victor Kulikov, and Maxim V

    Dmitrii G. Shadrin, Victor Kulikov, and Maxim V. Fedorov. Instance segmentation for as- sessment of plant growth dynamics in artificial soilless conditions. InBritish Machine Vision Conference, 2018. URLhttp://bmvc2018.org/contents/workshops/cvppp2018/0027.pdf

    2018

  41. [48]

    Manually annotated and curated dataset of diverse weed species in maize and sorghum for computer vision.Scientific Data, 11(1):109, 2024

    Nikita Genze, Wouter K Vahl, Jennifer Groth, Maximilian Wirth, Michael Grieb, and Do- minik G Grimm. Manually annotated and curated dataset of diverse weed species in maize and sorghum for computer vision.Scientific Data, 11(1):109, 2024. doi:10.1038/s41597-024- 02945-6

    2024 doi

  42. [49]

    Dimech, Sameer Joshi, Hans D

    Emily Thoday-Kennedy, Adam M. Dimech, Sameer Joshi, Hans D. Daetwyler, David Hudson, German Spangenberg, Matthew Hayden, and Surya Kant. An image dataset of diverse safflower (carthamus tinctorius l.) genotypes for salt response phenotyping.Data in Brief, 46:108787,

  43. [50]

    Multi-year belowground data of minirhizotron facilities in selhausen.Scientific Data, 10(1): 672, 2023

    Lena L¨ arm, Felix Maximilian Bauer, Normen Hermes, Jan van der Kruk, Harry Vereecken, Jan Vanderborght, Thuy Huu Nguyen, Gina Lopez, Sabine Julia Seidel, Frank Ewert, et al. Multi-year belowground data of minirhizotron facilities in selhausen.Scientific Data, 10(1): 672, 2023...

    2023 doi

  44. [51]

    F.-J. W. Parmentier, L. Nilsen, H. Tømmervik, and E. J. Cooper. A distributed time-lapse camera network to track vegetation phenology with high temporal detail and at varying scales. Earth System Science Data, 13(7):3593–3606, 2021. doi:10.5194/essd-13-3593-2021

    2021 doi

  45. [52]

    Hyperspectral time series datasets of maize during the grain filling period.BMC Research Notes, 15(1):152, 2022

    Valerie Craig, Hugh Earl, John Sulik, and Elizabeth A Lee. Hyperspectral time series datasets of maize during the grain filling period.BMC Research Notes, 15(1):152, 2022. doi:10.1186/s13104-022-06029-9. 34

    2022 doi

  46. [53]

    The ’plantain-optim’ dataset: Agronomic traits of 405 plantains every 15 days from planting to harvest.Data in Brief, 17:671–680, 2018

    Sylvain D´ epigny, Fr´ ed´ eric Tchotang, M´ edard Talla, D´ esir´ ee Fofack, David Essom´ e, Jean-Pierre Ebongu´ e, Bernard Kengni, and Thierry Lescot. The ’plantain-optim’ dataset: Agronomic traits of 405 plantains every 15 days from planting to harvest.Data in Brief, 17:671...

    2018 doi

  47. [54]

    Experimental dataset of sugarcane-cover crop intercropping trials to control weeds in reunion island.Data in Brief, 48:109244, 2023

    Billy Ngaba, Mathias Christina, Aliz´ e Mansuy, Julien Chetty, Mathilde Soul´ e, Marion Schwartz, Benjamin Heuclin, and Sandrine Auzoux. Experimental dataset of sugarcane-cover crop intercropping trials to control weeds in reunion island.Data in Brief, 48:109244, 2023. ISSN 23...

    2023

  48. [55]

    A multiple species, continent-wide, million- phenotype agronomic plant dataset.Scientific data, 8(1):116, 2021

    Saul Justin Newman and Robert T Furbank. A multiple species, continent-wide, million- phenotype agronomic plant dataset.Scientific data, 8(1):116, 2021. doi:10.1038/s41597-021- 00898-8

    2021 doi

  49. [56]

    Petya Campbell, Elizabeth Middleton, Karl Huemmrich, Lauren Ward, Tommaso Julitta, Peiqi Yang, Christiaan van der Tol, Craig Daughtry, Andrew Russ, Joseph Alfieri, and William Kustas. Scaling photosynthetic function and co2 dynamics from leaf to canopy level for maize – datase...

  50. [57]

    Dataset of photosynthesis and pho- tosynthetic factors measurements of greenhouse tomato.Data in Brief, 32:106274, 2020

    Jorge Manjarrez-Sanchez and Gerardo Martinez-Carrillo. Dataset of photosynthesis and pho- tosynthetic factors measurements of greenhouse tomato.Data in Brief, 32:106274, 2020. ISSN 2352-3409. doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.106274

    2020

  51. [58]

    Q. Niu, X. Li, J. Huang, H. Huang, X. Huang, W. Su, and W. Yuan. A 30 m annual maize phenology dataset from 1985 to 2020 in china.Earth System Science Data, 14(6):2851–2864,

    1985

  52. [59]

    M. Zhu, J. Dai, H. Wang, J. M. Alatalo, W. Liu, Y. Hao, and Q. Ge. Mapping 24 woody plant species phenology and ground forest phenology over china from 1951 to 2020.Earth System Science Data, 16(1):277–293, 2024. doi:10.5194/essd-16-277-2024

    1951 doi

  53. [60]

    Proteomic and tran- scriptomic profiling of aerial organ development in arabidopsis.Scientific Data, 7(1):334, 2020

    Julia Mergner, Martin Frejno, Maxim Messerer, Daniel Lang, Patroklos Samaras, Mathias Wilhelm, Klaus FX Mayer, Claus Schwechheimer, and Bernhard Kuster. Proteomic and tran- scriptomic profiling of aerial organ development in arabidopsis.Scientific Data, 7(1):334, 2020. doi:10....

    2020 doi

  54. [61]

    doi:10.1016/j.dib.2021.107600

    ISSN 2352-3409. doi:10.1016/j.dib.2021.107600

    2021

  55. [62]

    Transcriptome profiling of aerial and subterranean peanut pod development

    Zhenying Peng, Kai-Hua Jia, Jingjing Meng, Jianguo Wang, Jialei Zhang, Xinguo Li, and Shubo Wan. Transcriptome profiling of aerial and subterranean peanut pod development. Scientific Data, 11(1):364, 2024. doi:10.1038/s41597-024-03205-3

    2024 doi

  56. [63]

    Schnable

    Yufeng Ge, Geng Bai, Vincent Stoerger, and James C. Schnable. Temporal dynamics of maize plant growth, water use, and leaf water content using automated high throughput rgb and hyperspectral imaging.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 127:625–632, 2016. ISSN 0168-1699. d...

    2016 doi

  57. [64]

    Anche, Nicholas Morales, Nicholas S

    Mahlet T. Anche, Nicholas Morales, Nicholas S. Kaczmar, Nicholas Santantonio, Michael A. Gore, and Kelly R. Robbins. Scalable growth models for time-series multispectral images.The Plant Phenome Journal, 6(1):e20064, 2023. doi:10.1002/ppj2.20064

    2023 doi

  58. [65]

    Temporal covariance structure of multi-spectral phe- notypes and their predictive ability for end-of-season traits in maize.Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 133:2853–2868, 2020

    Mahlet T Anche, Nicholas S Kaczmar, Nicolas Morales, James W Clohessy, Daniel C Ilut, Michael A Gore, and Kelly R Robbins. Temporal covariance structure of multi-spectral phe- notypes and their predictive ability for end-of-season traits in maize.Theoretical and Applied Geneti...

    2020 doi

  59. [66]

    In-field high throughput phenotyping and cotton plant growth analysis using lidar.Frontiers in Plant Science, 9:16, 2018

    Shangpeng Sun, Changying Li, Andrew H Paterson, Yu Jiang, Rui Xu, Jon S Robertson, John L Snider, and Peng W Chee. In-field high throughput phenotyping and cotton plant growth analysis using lidar.Frontiers in Plant Science, 9:16, 2018. doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.00016

    2018

  60. [67]

    Castro, J

    Juan C. Castro, J. Dylan Maddox, Hicler N. Rodr ´ ıguez, Carlos G. Castro, Sixto A. Im´ an- Correa, Marianela Cobos, Jae D. Paredes, Jorge L. Marapara, Janeth Braga, and Pedro M. Adrianz´ en. Dataset of de novo assembly and functional annotation of the transcriptome during ger...

    2020

  61. [68]

    Durbha, Ryokei Tanaka, Hiroyoshi Iwata, Milan O

    Soumyashree Kar, Vincent Garin, Jana Kholov´ a, Vincent Vadez, Surya S. Durbha, Ryokei Tanaka, Hiroyoshi Iwata, Milan O. Urban, and J. Adinarayana. Spatemhtp: A data analysis pipeline for efficient processing and utilization of temporal high-throughput phenotyping data. Fronti...

    2020

  62. [69]

    Mehdi Momen, Malachy T Campbell, Harkamal Walia, and Gota Morota. Predicting Longi- tudinal Traits Derived from High-Throughput Phenomics in Contrasting Environments Using Genomic Legendre Polynomials and B-Splines.G3 Genes—Genomes—Genetics, 9(10):3369– 3380, 10 2019. ISSN 216...

    2019 doi

  63. [70]

    Duke Pauli, Pedro Andrade-Sanchez, A Elizabete Carmo-Silva, Elodie Gazave, Andrew N French, John Heun, Douglas J Hunsaker, Alexander E Lipka, Tim L Setter, Robert J Strand, Kelly R Thorp, Sam Wang, Jeffrey W White, and Michael A Gore. Field-Based High- Throughput Plant Phenoty...

    2016 doi

  64. [71]

    Campbell, Harkamal Walia, and Gota Morota

    Toshimi Baba, Mehdi Momen, Malachy T. Campbell, Harkamal Walia, and Gota Morota. Multi-trait random regression models increase genomic prediction accuracy for a temporal 36 physiological trait derived from high-throughput phenotyping.PLOS ONE, 15(2):1–17, 02

  65. [72]

    Spatio-temporal modeling of high-throughput multispectral aerial images improves agronomic trait genomic prediction in hybrid maize.Genetics, 227(1): iyae037, 03 2024

    Nicolas Morales, Mahlet T Anche, Nicholas S Kaczmar, Nicholas Lepak, Pengzun Ni, Maria Cinta Romay, Nicholas Santantonio, Edward S Buckler, Michael A Gore, Lukas A Mueller, and Kelly R Robbins. Spatio-temporal modeling of high-throughput multispectral aerial images improves ag...

    2024 doi

  66. [73]

    P´ erez-Valencia, Mar ´ ıa Xos´ e Rodr ´ ıguez-´Alvarez, Martin P

    Diana M. P´ erez-Valencia, Mar ´ ıa Xos´ e Rodr ´ ıguez-´Alvarez, Martin P. Boer, Lukas Kronenberg, Andreas Hund, Lloren¸ c Cabrera-Bosquet, Emilie J. Millet, and Fred A. van Eeuwijk. A two-stage approach for the spatio-temporal analysis of high-throughput phenotyping data. Sc...

    2022 doi

  67. [74]

    A one-stage approach for the spatio-temporal analysis of high-throughput phe- notyping data.Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, pages 1–23,

    Diana Marcela Perez-Valencia, Maria Xose Rodriguez-Alvarez, Martin P Boer, and Fred A van Eeuwijk. A one-stage approach for the spatio-temporal analysis of high-throughput phe- notyping data.Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, pages 1–23,

  68. [75]

    Temesgen Teressa, Zigale Semahegn, and Tamirat Bejiga. Multi environments and genetic- environmental interaction (gxe) in plant breeding and its challenges: a review arti- cle.International Journal of Research Studies in Agricultural Sciences, 7(4):11–18, 2021. doi:10.20431/24...

    2021

  69. [76]

    Spatial regression models for field trials: a comparative study and new ideas.Frontiers in plant science, 13:858711, 2022

    Stijn Hawinkel, Sam De Meyer, and Steven Maere. Spatial regression models for field trials: a comparative study and new ideas.Frontiers in plant science, 13:858711, 2022. doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.858711

    2022

  70. [77]

    Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance.Ecography, 36(1):27–46, 2013

    Carsten F Dormann, Jane Elith, Sven Bacher, Carsten Buchmann, Gudrun Carl, Gabriel Carr´ e, Jaime R Garc ´ ıa Marqu´ ez, Bernd Gruber, Bruno Lafourcade, Pedro J Leit˜ ao, et al. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performan...

    2013

  71. [78]

    What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models.Biopsychosocial Science and Medicine, 66(3):411–421,

    Michael A Babyak. What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models.Biopsychosocial Science and Medicine, 66(3):411–421,

  72. [79]

    The temporal overfitting problem with applications in wind power curve modeling.Technometrics, 65(1):70–82, 2023

    Abhinav Prakash, Rui Tuo, and Yu Ding. The temporal overfitting problem with applications in wind power curve modeling.Technometrics, 65(1):70–82, 2023. doi:10.1080/00401706.2022.2069158

    2023

  73. [80]

    Mapping and Predicting Non-Linear Brassica rapa Growth Phenotypes Based on Bayesian and Frequentist Complex Trait Es- timation.G3 Genes—Genomes—Genetics, 8(4):1247–1258, 04 2018

    R L Baker, W F Leong, S Welch, and C Weinig. Mapping and Predicting Non-Linear Brassica rapa Growth Phenotypes Based on Bayesian and Frequentist Complex Trait Es- timation.G3 Genes—Genomes—Genetics, 8(4):1247–1258, 04 2018. ISSN 2160-1836. doi:10.1534/g3.117.300350

    2018 doi

  74. [81]

    Optimal inference after model selection

    William Fithian, Dennis Sun, and Jonathan Taylor. Optimal inference after model selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.2597, 2014. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1410.2597. 37

    2014 doi arXiv

  75. [82]

    Universally sloppy parameter sensitivities in systems biology models.PLoS computational biology, 3(10):e189, 2007

    Ryan N Gutenkunst, Joshua J Waterfall, Fergal P Casey, Kevin S Brown, Christopher R Myers, and James P Sethna. Universally sloppy parameter sensitivities in systems biology models.PLoS computational biology, 3(10):e189, 2007. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030189

    2007 doi

  76. [83]

    Springer, 2000

    Robert H Shumway, David S Stoffer, and David S Stoffer.Time series analysis and its appli- cations, volume 3. Springer, 2000. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-70584-7

    doi

  77. [84]

    Plant growth prediction through intelligent embedded sensing

    Sergey Nesteruk, Dmitrii Shadrin, Vladislav Kovalenko, Antonio Rodr ´ ıguez-S´ anchez, and Andrey Somov. Plant growth prediction through intelligent embedded sensing. In2020 IEEE 29th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE), pages 411–416, 2020. doi:10.1109/IS...

    2020

  78. [85]

    Alper Adak, Aaron J DeSalvio, Mustafa A Arik, and Seth C Murray. Field-based high- throughput phenotyping enhances phenomic and genomic predictions for grain yield and plant height across years in maize.G3 Genes—Genomes—Genetics, 14(7):jkae092, 05 2024. doi:10.1093/g3journal/jkae092

    2024 doi

  79. [86]

    Growth dynamics and heritability for plant high- throughput phenotyping studies using hierarchical functional data analysis.Biometrical Jour- nal, 63(6):1325–1341, 2021

    Yuhang Xu, Yehua Li, and Yumou Qiu. Growth dynamics and heritability for plant high- throughput phenotyping studies using hierarchical functional data analysis.Biometrical Jour- nal, 63(6):1325–1341, 2021. doi:10.1002/bimj.202000315

    2021 doi

  80. [87]

    Forecast evaluation for data scientists: common pitfalls and best practices.Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 37(2):788–832, 2023

    Hansika Hewamalage, Klaus Ackermann, and Christoph Bergmeir. Forecast evaluation for data scientists: common pitfalls and best practices.Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 37(2):788–832, 2023. doi:10.1007/s10618-022-00894-5

    2023 doi

  81. [88]

    Matsumura, C

    K. Matsumura, C. F. Gaitan, K. Sugimoto, A. J. Cannon, and W. W. Hsieh. Maize yield forecasting by linear regression and artificial neural networks in jilin, china.The Journal of Agricultural Science, 153(3):399–410, 2015. doi:10.1017/S0021859614000392

    2015 doi

  82. [89]

    On overfitting and post-selection uncertainty assessments.Biometrika, 105(1):221–224, 2018

    Liang Hong, Todd A Kuffner, and Ryan Martin. On overfitting and post-selection uncertainty assessments.Biometrika, 105(1):221–224, 2018. doi:10.1093/biomet/asx083

    2018 doi

  83. [90]

    Using deep learning to predict plant growth and yield in greenhouse environments

    Bashar Alhnaity, Simon Pearson, Georgios Leontidis, and Stefanos Kollias. Using deep learning to predict plant growth and yield in greenhouse environments. InInternational Symposium on Advanced Technologies and Management for Innovative Greenhouses: GreenSys2019 1296, pages 42...

    2019

  84. [91]

    Deep learning based prediction on greenhouse crop yield combined tcn and rnn.Sensors, 21(13), 2021

    Liyun Gong, Miao Yu, Shouyong Jiang, Vassilis Cutsuridis, and Simon Pearson. Deep learning based prediction on greenhouse crop yield combined tcn and rnn.Sensors, 21(13), 2021. ISSN 1424-8220. doi:10.3390/s21134537

    2021 doi

  85. [92]

    An autoencoder wavelet based deep neural network with attention mechanism for multi-step prediction of plant growth.Information Sciences, 560:35–50, 2021

    Bashar Alhnaity, Stefanos Kollias, Georgios Leontidis, Shouyong Jiang, Bert Schamp, and Simon Pearson. An autoencoder wavelet based deep neural network with attention mechanism for multi-step prediction of plant growth.Information Sciences, 560:35–50, 2021. ISSN 0020-

    2021

  86. [93]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. InProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS’17, pages 6000–6010, Red H...

    2017 doi arXiv

  87. [94]

    King, Vianey Leos-Barajas, Joanna Mills Flemming, Anders Nielsen, Giovanni Petris, and Len Thomas

    Marie Auger-M´ eth´ e, Ken Newman, Diana Cole, Fanny Empacher, Rowenna Gryba, Aaron A. King, Vianey Leos-Barajas, Joanna Mills Flemming, Anders Nielsen, Giovanni Petris, and Len Thomas. A guide to state–space modeling of ecological time series.Ecological Monographs, 91 (4):e01...

    2021 doi

  88. [95]

    Kalman filtering for accurate and fast plant growth dynam- ics assessment

    Dmitrii Shadrin, Tatiana Podladchikova, George Ovchinnikov, Artem Pavlov, Mariia Pukalchik, and Andrey Somov. Kalman filtering for accurate and fast plant growth dynam- ics assessment. In2020 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC), pag...

    2020

  89. [96]

    Full bayesian inference in hidden markov models of plant growth.The Annals of Applied Statistics, 16(4):2352–2368, 2022

    Gautier Viaud, Yuting Chen, and Paul-Henry Courn` ede. Full bayesian inference in hidden markov models of plant growth.The Annals of Applied Statistics, 16(4):2352–2368, 2022. doi:10.1214/21-AOAS1594

    2022 doi

  90. [97]

    Shibata, R

    S. Shibata, R. Mizuno, and H. Mineno. Semisupervised deep state-space model for plant growth modeling.Plant Phenomics, 2020, 2020. doi:10.34133/2020/4261965

    2020 doi

  91. [98]

    Development of growth estimation algo- rithms for hydroponic bell peppers using recurrent neural networks.Horticulturae, 7(9):284,

    Joon-Woo Lee, Taewon Moon, and Jung-Eek Son. Development of growth estimation algo- rithms for hydroponic bell peppers using recurrent neural networks.Horticulturae, 7(9):284,

  92. [99]

    doi:10.3390/horticulturae7090284

    doi

  93. [100]

    Toward transpar- ent ai: A survey on interpreting the inner structures of deep neural networks

    Tilman R¨ auker, Anson Ho, Stephen Casper, and Dylan Hadfield-Menell. Toward transpar- ent ai: A survey on interpreting the inner structures of deep neural networks. In2023 ieee conference on secure and trustworthy machine learning (satml), pages 464–483. IEEE, 2023. doi:10.11...

    2023

  94. [101]

    Ian T Jolliffe and Jorge Cadima. Principal component analysis: a review and recent de- velopments.Philosophical transactions of the royal society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2065):20150202, 2016. doi:10.1098/rsta.2015.0202

    2016

  95. [102]

    Cassia – a dynamic model for predicting intra-annual sink demand and interannual growth variation in scots pine.New Phytologist, 206(2):647–659, 2015

    Pauliina Schiestl-Aalto, Liisa Kulmala, Harri M¨ akinen, Eero Nikinmaa, and Annikki M¨ akel¨ a. Cassia – a dynamic model for predicting intra-annual sink demand and interannual growth variation in scots pine.New Phytologist, 206(2):647–659, 2015. doi:10.1111/nph.13275

    2015 doi

  96. [103]

    A knowledge-and-data-driven modeling approach for simulating plant growth: A case study on tomato growth.Ecological Modelling, 312:363–373, 2015

    Xing-Rong Fan, Meng-Zhen Kang, Ep Heuvelink, Philippe de Reffye, and Bao-Gang Hu. A knowledge-and-data-driven modeling approach for simulating plant growth: A case study on tomato growth.Ecological Modelling, 312:363–373, 2015. ISSN 0304-3800. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.06.006. 39

    2015 doi

  97. [104]

    Deep learning meets process-based models: A hybrid approach to agricultural challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16141, 2025

    Yue Shi, Liangxiu Han, Xin Zhang, Tam Sobeih, Thomas Gaiser, Nguyen Huu Thuy, Dominik Behrend, Amit Kumar Srivastava, Krishnagopal Halder, and Frank Ewert. Deep learning meets process-based models: A hybrid approach to agricultural challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16141, 2...

    2025 doi arXiv

  98. [106]

    J. Vos, J. B. Evers, G. H. Buck-Sorlin, B. Andrieu, M. Chelle, and P. H. B. de Visser. Functional–structural plant modelling: a new versatile tool in crop science.Journal of Exper- imental Botany, 61(8):2101–2115, 12 2009. ISSN 0022-0957. doi:10.1093/jxb/erp345

    2009 doi

  99. [107]

    Introducing turgor-driven growth dynamics into functional–structural plant models.Annals of Botany, 121(5):849–861, 01 2018

    Jonas R Coussement, Tom De Swaef, Peter Lootens, Isabel Rold´ an-Ruiz, and Kathy Steppe. Introducing turgor-driven growth dynamics into functional–structural plant models.Annals of Botany, 121(5):849–861, 01 2018. ISSN 0305-7364. doi:10.1093/aob/mcx144

    2018 doi

  100. [108]

    Evers.Simulating Crop Growth and Development Using Functional-Structural Plant Modeling, pages 219–236

    Jochem B. Evers.Simulating Crop Growth and Development Using Functional-Structural Plant Modeling, pages 219–236. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2016. ISBN 978-94-017-7291-4. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-7291-4 8

    2016 doi

  101. [109]

    The mythos of model interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery.Queue, 16(3):31–57, 2018

    Zachary C Lipton. The mythos of model interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery.Queue, 16(3):31–57, 2018. doi:10.1145/3236386.3241340

    2018

  102. [110]

    PhD thesis, University of Limerick, 2025

    Laura O’Mahony.Interpretability and the nature of latent representations in deep neural networks. PhD thesis, University of Limerick, 2025

    2025

  103. [111]

    Bridging time-series image phenotyping and functional–structural plant model- ing to predict adventitious root system architecture.Plant Phenomics, 5:0127, 2023

    Sriram Parasurama, Darshi Banan, Kyungdahm Yun, Sharon Doty, and Soo-Hyung Kim. Bridging time-series image phenotyping and functional–structural plant model- ing to predict adventitious root system architecture.Plant Phenomics, 5:0127, 2023. doi:10.34133/plantphenomics.0127

    2023 doi

  104. [112]

    Leaf-movement-based growth prediction model using optical flow analysis and ma- chine learning in plant factory.Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 2019

    Shogo Nagano, Shogo Moriyuki, Kazumasa Wakamori, Hiroshi Mineno, and Hirokazu Fukuda. Leaf-movement-based growth prediction model using optical flow analysis and ma- chine learning in plant factory.Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 2019. ISSN 1664-462X. doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.00227

    2019

  105. [113]

    Jimmy Hsia

    Changjin Huang, Zilu Wang, David Quinn, Subra Suresh, and K. Jimmy Hsia. Differential growth and shape formation in plant organs.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49):12359–12364, 2018. doi:10.1073/pnas.1811296115

    2018 doi

  106. [114]

    Smith.Modeling Plant Tissue Growth and Cell Division, pages 107–138

    Gabriella Mosca, Milad Adibi, Soeren Strauss, Adam Runions, Aleksandra Sapala, and Richard S. Smith.Modeling Plant Tissue Growth and Cell Division, pages 107–138. Springer 40 International Publishing, Cham, 2018. ISBN 978-3-319-99070-5. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99070- 5 7

    2018 doi

  107. [115]

    Smith, and Miltos Tsiantis

    Daniel Kierzkowski, Adam Runions, Francesco Vuolo, S¨ oren Strauss, Rena Lymbouri- dou, Anne-Lise Routier-Kierzkowska, David Wilson-S´ anchez, Hannah Jenke, Carla Gal- inha, Gabriella Mosca, Zhongjuan Zhang, Claudia Canales, Raffaele Dello Ioio, Peter Huijser, Richard S. Smith...

    2019 doi

  108. [116]

    Mathematical models for cellular interactions in development i

    Aristid Lindenmayer. Mathematical models for cellular interactions in development i. filaments with one-sided inputs.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 18(3):280–299, 1968. ISSN 0022-5193. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(68)90079-9

    1968 doi

  109. [117]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz and Aristid Lindenmayer.The algorithmic beauty of plants. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-8476-2

    2012 doi

  110. [118]

    Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018

    Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz, Mikolaj Cieslak, Pascal Ferraro, and Jim Hanan.Modeling Plant Development with L-Systems, pages 139–169. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018. ISBN 978-3-319-99070-5. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99070-5 8

    2018 doi

  111. [119]

    M. T. Allen, P. Prusinkiewicz, and T. M. DeJong. Using l-systems for modeling source–sink interactions, architecture and physiology of growing trees: the l-peach model.New Phytologist, 166(3):869–880, 2005. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01348.x

    2005

  112. [120]

    Functional– structural plant model ”greenlab”: A state-of-the-art review.Plant Phenomics, 6:0118, 2024

    Xiujuan Wang, Jing Hua, Mengzhen Kang, Haoyu Wang, and Philippe Reffye. Functional– structural plant model ”greenlab”: A state-of-the-art review.Plant Phenomics, 6:0118, 2024. doi:10.34133/plantphenomics.0118

    2024 doi

  113. [121]

    Davey, Christopher Tindal, Howard Thomas, Helen J

    Yin Hoon Chew, B´ en´ edicte Wenden, Anna Flis, Virginie Mengin, Jasper Taylor, Christopher L. Davey, Christopher Tindal, Howard Thomas, Helen J. Ougham, Philippe de Reffye, Mark Stitt, Mathew Williams, Robert Muetzelfeldt, Karen J. Halliday, and Andrew J. Millar. Multiscale d...

    2014 doi

  114. [122]

    Machine learning and polynomial – l system algorithm for modeling and simulation of glycine max (l) mer- rill growth

    Rika Rokhana, Wiwiet Herulambang, and Rarasmaya Indraswari. Machine learning and polynomial – l system algorithm for modeling and simulation of glycine max (l) mer- rill growth. In2020 International Electronics Symposium (IES), pages 463–467, 2020. doi:10.1109/IES50839.2020.9231935

    2020

  115. [123]

    Eroots: A three- dimensional dynamic growth model of rice roots coupled with soil.Biosystems Engineering, 244:122–133, 2024

    Le Yang, Panpan Wu, Zhengkang Zuo, Lan Long, Junlin Shi, and Yutang Liu. Eroots: A three- dimensional dynamic growth model of rice roots coupled with soil.Biosystems Engineering, 244:122–133, 2024. ISSN 1537-5110. doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2024.06.002

    2024 doi

  116. [124]

    Growspace: A reinforcement learning environment for plant architec- ture.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 217:108613, 2024

    Yasmeen Hitti, Ionelia Buzatu, Manuel Del Verme, Mark Lefsrud, Florian Golemo, and Audrey Durand. Growspace: A reinforcement learning environment for plant architec- ture.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 217:108613, 2024. ISSN 0168-1699. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2024.108613. 41

    2024

  117. [125]

    An agent-based, interactive simulation model of root growth

    Marc Mußmann, Daniel Nicolas Hofstadler, and Sebastian von Mammen. An agent-based, interactive simulation model of root growth. volume ALIFE 2024: Proceedings of the 2024 Artificial Life Conference ofArtificial Life Conference Proceedings, page 7, 07 2024. doi:10.1162/isal a 00718

    2024 doi

  118. [126]

    Plant growth prediction using convolutional lstm

    Shunsuke Sakurai., Hideaki Uchiyama., Atshushi Shimada., and Rin-Ichiro Taniguchi. Plant growth prediction using convolutional lstm. InProceedings of the 14th Interna- tional Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (5: VISAPP)...

    2019 doi

  119. [127]

    Predicting plant growth and development using time-series images.Agronomy, 12(9), 2022

    Chunying Wang, Weiting Pan, Xubin Song, Haixia Yu, Junke Zhu, Ping Liu, and Xiang Li. Predicting plant growth and development using time-series images.Agronomy, 12(9), 2022. ISSN 2073-4395. doi:10.3390/agronomy12092213

    2022 doi

  120. [128]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1312.6114

    2013 doi arXiv

  121. [129]

    Robail Yasrab, Jincheng Zhang, Polina Smyth, and Michael P. Pound. Predicting plant growth from time-series data using deep learning.Remote Sensing, 13(3), 2021. ISSN 2072-4292. doi:10.3390/rs13030331

    2021 doi

  122. [130]

    A novel shape based plant growth prediction algorithm using deep learning and spatial transformation.IEEE Access, 10:37731–37742, 2022

    Taehyeon Kim, Sang-Ho Lee, and Jong-Ok Kim. A novel shape based plant growth prediction algorithm using deep learning and spatial transformation.IEEE Access, 10:37731–37742, 2022. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3165211

    2022

  123. [131]

    The l-almond model: a functional-structural virtual tree model of almond tree architectural growth, carbohydrate dynamics over multiple years

    TM DeJong, D Da Silva, C Negron, M Cieslak, and P Prusinkiewicz. The l-almond model: a functional-structural virtual tree model of almond tree architectural growth, carbohydrate dynamics over multiple years. InX International Symposium on Modelling in Fruit Research and Orchar...

    2015

  124. [132]

    Simulating fruit tree growth, structure, and physiology using l-systems

    Theodore DeJong. Simulating fruit tree growth, structure, and physiology using l-systems. Crop Science, 62(6):2091–2106, 2022. doi:10.1002/csc2.20847

    2022 doi

  125. [133]

    Controlled multi-modal image generation for plant growth modeling

    Miro Miranda, Lukas Drees, and Ribana Roscher. Controlled multi-modal image generation for plant growth modeling. In2022 26th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 5118–5124, 2022. doi:10.1109/ICPR56361.2022.9956115

    2022

  126. [134]

    Temporal prediction and evaluation of brassica growth in the field using conditional generative adversarial networks.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 190:106415, 2021

    Lukas Drees, Laura Verena Junker-Frohn, Jana Kierdorf, and Ribana Roscher. Temporal prediction and evaluation of brassica growth in the field using conditional generative adversarial networks.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 190:106415, 2021. ISSN 0168-1699. doi:10.10...

    2021

  127. [135]

    Probabilistic biomass es- timation with conditional generative adversarial networks

    Johannes Leonhardt, Lukas Drees, Peter Jung, and Ribana Roscher. Probabilistic biomass es- timation with conditional generative adversarial networks. In Bj¨ orn Andres, Florian Bernard, 42 Daniel Cremers, Simone Frintrop, Bastian Goldl¨ ucke, and Ivo Ihrke, editors,Pattern Rec...

    2022

  128. [136]

    Demie, Madhuri R

    Lukas Drees, Dereje T. Demie, Madhuri R. Paul, Johannes Leonhardt, Sabine J. Seidel, Thomas F. D¨ oring, and Ribana Roscher. Data-driven crop growth simulation on time-varying generated images using multi-conditional generative adversarial networks.Plant Methods, 20 (1), 06 20...

    2024 doi

  129. [138]

    A time-dependent parameter estimation framework for crop modeling.Scientific reports, 11(1):11437, 2021

    Faezeh Akhavizadegan, Javad Ansarifar, Lizhi Wang, Isaiah Huber, and Sotirios V Archon- toulis. A time-dependent parameter estimation framework for crop modeling.Scientific reports, 11(1):11437, 2021. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-90835-x

    2021 doi

  130. [139]

    Literature review crop modeling and introduction a simple crop model.Journal of Applied Agricultural Science and Technology, 7(3):197–216, 2023

    Irfan Suliansyah, Feri Arlius, Irawati Chaniago, Nguyen Thi Thanh Xuan, Pham Van Quang, et al. Literature review crop modeling and introduction a simple crop model.Journal of Applied Agricultural Science and Technology, 7(3):197–216, 2023. doi:10.55043/jaast.v7i3.123

    2023 doi

  131. [140]

    Priscilla Ntuchu Kephe, Kingsley Kwabena Ayisi, and Brilliant Mareme Petja. Challenges and opportunities in crop simulation modelling under seasonal and projected climate change scenarios for crop production in south africa.Agriculture & Food Security, 10(1):1–24, 2021. doi:10...

    2021 doi

  132. [141]

    Data-centric digital agricul- ture: A perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03437, 2023

    Ribana Roscher, Lukas Roth, Cyrill Stachniss, and Achim Walter. Data-centric digital agricul- ture: A perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03437, 2023. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2312.03437

    2023 doi arXiv

  133. [142]

    Self-supervised plant phenotyping by combining domain adaptation with 3d plant model simulations: Application to wheat leaf counting at seedling stage.Plant Phenomics, 5:0041, 2023

    Yinglun Li, Xiaohai Zhan, Shouyang Liu, Hao Lu, Ruibo Jiang, Wei Guo, Scott Chapman, Yufeng Ge, Benoit Solan, Yanfeng Ding, and Fr´ ed´ eric Baret. Self-supervised plant phenotyping by combining domain adaptation with 3d plant model simulations: Application to wheat leaf count...

    2023 doi

  134. [143]

    Generative adversarial networks (gans) for image augmentation in agriculture: A systematic review.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 200:107208, 2022

    Yuzhen Lu, Dong Chen, Ebenezer Olaniyi, and Yanbo Huang. Generative adversarial networks (gans) for image augmentation in agriculture: A systematic review.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 200:107208, 2022. ISSN 0168-1699. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2022.107208

    2022

  135. [144]

    Explain- able deep learning in plant phenotyping.Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6:1203546, 2023

    Sakib Mostafa, Debajyoti Mondal, Karim Panjvani, Leon Kochian, and Ian Stavness. Explain- able deep learning in plant phenotyping.Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6:1203546, 2023. doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1203546

    2023

  136. [145]

    Embracing limited and imperfect training datasets: opportunities and challenges in plant disease recognition using deep learning.Frontiers in Plant Science, 14: 1225409, 2023

    Mingle Xu, Hyongsuk Kim, Jucheng Yang, Alvaro Fuentes, Yao Meng, Sook Yoon, Taehyun Kim, and Dong Sun Park. Embracing limited and imperfect training datasets: opportunities and challenges in plant disease recognition using deep learning.Frontiers in Plant Science, 14: 1225409,...

    2023

  137. [146]

    Danilevicz, Philipp E

    Monica F. Danilevicz, Philipp E. Bayer, Benjamin J. Nestor, Mohammed Bennamoun, and David Edwards. Resources for image-based high-throughput phenotyping in crops and data sharing challenges.Plant Physiology, 187(2):699–715, 06 2021. ISSN 0032-0889. doi:10.1093/plphys/kiab301

    2021 doi

  138. [147]

    Label-efficient learning in agriculture: A comprehensive review.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 215:108412, 2023

    Jiajia Li, Dong Chen, Xinda Qi, Zhaojian Li, Yanbo Huang, Daniel Morris, and Xiaobo Tan. Label-efficient learning in agriculture: A comprehensive review.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 215:108412, 2023. ISSN 0168-1699. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2023.108412

    2023

  139. [148]

    Analysing the phenotype develop- ment of soybean plants using low-cost 3d reconstruction.Scientific reports, 10(1):7055, 2020

    Rongsheng Zhu, Kai Sun, Zhuangzhuang Yan, Xuehui Yan, Jianglin Yu, Jia Shi, Zhenbang Hu, Hongwei Jiang, Dawei Xin, Zhanguo Zhang, et al. Analysing the phenotype develop- ment of soybean plants using low-cost 3d reconstruction.Scientific reports, 10(1):7055, 2020. doi:10.1038/s...

    2020 doi

  140. [149]

    A review of imaging techniques for plant phenotyping

    Lei Li, Qin Zhang, and Danfeng Huang. A review of imaging techniques for plant phenotyping. Sensors, 14(11):20078–20111, 2014. ISSN 1424-8220. doi:10.3390/s141120078

    2014 doi

  141. [150]

    Challenges for fair-compliant description and comparison of crop pheno- type data with standardized controlled vocabularies.Database, 2021:baab028, 05 2021

    Liliana Andr´ es-Hern´ andez, Razlin Azman Halimi, Ramil Mauleon, Sean Mayes, Abdul Baten, and Graham J King. Challenges for fair-compliant description and comparison of crop pheno- type data with standardized controlled vocabularies.Database, 2021:baab028, 05 2021. ISSN 1758-...

    2021 doi

  142. [151]

    Making deep neural networks right for the right scientific reasons by interacting with their explanations

    Patrick Schramowski, Wolfgang Stammer, Stefano Teso, Anna Brugger, Franziska Herbert, Xiaoting Shao, Hans-Georg Luigs, Anne-Katrin Mahlein, and Kristian Kersting. Making deep neural networks right for the right scientific reasons by interacting with their explanations. Nature ...

    2020 doi

  143. [152]

    Weijun Cheng, Tengfei Ma, Xiaoting Wang, and Gang Wang. Anomaly detection for internet of things time series data using generative adversarial networks with attention mechanism in smart agriculture.Frontiers in Plant Science, Volume 13 - 2022, 2022. ISSN 1664-462X. doi:10.3389...

    2022

  144. [153]

    How to make sense of 3d representations for plant phenotyping: a compendium of processing and analysis techniques.Plant Methods, 19(1):60, 2023

    Negin Harandi, Breght Vandenberghe, Joris Vankerschaver, Stephen Depuydt, and Arnout Van Messem. How to make sense of 3d representations for plant phenotyping: a compendium of processing and analysis techniques.Plant Methods, 19(1):60, 2023. doi:10.1186/s13007-023- 01031-z

    2023 doi

  145. [154]

    Deep learning to capture leaf shape in plant images: Validation by geometric morphometrics.The Plant Journal, 120(4): 1343–1357, 2024

    Ladislav Hodaˇ c, Kevin Karbstein, Lara K¨ osters, Michael Rzanny, Hans Christian Wittich, David Boho, David ˇSubrt, Patrick M¨ ader, and Jana W¨ aldchen. Deep learning to capture leaf shape in plant images: Validation by geometric morphometrics.The Plant Journal, 120(4): 1343...

    2024 doi

  146. [155]

    Wei Li, Deli Zhu, and Qing Wang. A single view leaf reconstruction method based on the fusion of resnet and differentiable render in plant growth digital twin system.Computers and Elec- tronics in Agriculture, 193:106712, 2022. ISSN 0168-1699. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2022.106712

    2022

  147. [156]

    A 3d functional plant modelling framework for agricultural digital twins.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 218:108733,

    Christos Mitsanis, William Hurst, and Bedir Tekinerdogan. A 3d functional plant modelling framework for agricultural digital twins.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 218:108733,

  148. [164]

    Tranad: Deep transformer networks for anomaly detection in multivariate time series data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07284, 2022

    Shreshth Tuli, Giuliano Casale, and Nicholas R Jennings. Tranad: Deep transformer networks for anomaly detection in multivariate time series data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07284, 2022. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2201.07284

    2022 doi arXiv

  149. [165]

    Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02642, 2021

    Jiehui Xu, Haixu Wu, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02642, 2021. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2110.02642

    2021 doi arXiv

  150. [168]

    doi:10.1016/j.compag.2024.108733

    ISSN 0168-1699. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2024.108733. 44

    2024

  151. [255]

    doi:10.1016/j.ins.2021.01.037. 38

    2021 doi

  152. [2004]

    doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000127692.23278.a9

  153. [2017]

    doi:10.1080/15487733.2017.1394054

    2017

  154. [2020]

    doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228118

    doi

  155. [2021]

    doi:10.3389/fbioe.2020.623705

    ISSN 2296-4185. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2020.623705

    2020

  156. [2022]

    doi:10.5194/essd-14-2851-2022

    2022 doi

  157. [2023]

    doi:10.1016/j.dib.2022.108787

    ISSN 2352-3409. doi:10.1016/j.dib.2022.108787

    2022

  158. [2024]

    doi:10.1007/s13253-024-00642-w

    doi

  159. [7747]

    doi:10.3390/plants11172199

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.