↓ Skip to main content

Automating Digital Leaf Measurement: The Tooth, the Whole Tooth, and Nothing but the Tooth

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Automating Digital Leaf Measurement: The Tooth, the Whole Tooth, and Nothing but the Tooth
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0042112
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Many species of plants produce leaves with distinct teeth around their margins. The presence and nature of these teeth can often help botanists to identify species. Moreover, it has long been known that more species native to colder regions have teeth than species native to warmer regions. It has therefore been suggested that fossilized remains of leaves can be used as a proxy for ancient climate reconstruction. Similar studies on living plants can help our understanding of the relationships. The required analysis of leaves typically involves considerable manual effort, which in practice limits the number of leaves that are analyzed, potentially reducing the power of the results. In this work, we describe a novel algorithm to automate the marginal tooth analysis of leaves found in digital images. We demonstrate our methods on a large set of images of whole herbarium specimens collected from Tilia trees (also known as lime, linden or basswood). We chose the genus Tilia as its constituent species have toothed leaves of varied size and shape. In a previous study we extracted c.1600 leaves automatically from a set of c.1100 images. Our new algorithm locates teeth on the margins of such leaves and extracts features such as each tooth's area, perimeter and internal angles, as well as counting them. We evaluate an implementation of our algorithm's performance against a manually analyzed subset of the images. We found that the algorithm achieves an accuracy of 85% for counting teeth and 75% for estimating tooth area. We also demonstrate that the automatically extracted features are sufficient to identify different species of Tilia using a simple linear discriminant analysis, and that the features relating to teeth are the most useful.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
United States 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Sri Lanka 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 60 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 55%
Computer Science 6 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 6%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 13 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 January 2022.
All research outputs
#11,458,382
of 34,360,257 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#98,547
of 224,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,398
of 214,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,058
of 4,376 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,257 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 65th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 214,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,376 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.