% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Rose:866522,
author = {Rose, Laura and Lobet, Guillaume},
title = {{A}ccuracy of image analysis tools for functional root
traits: {A} comment on {D}elory et al. (2017)},
journal = {Methods in ecology and evolution},
volume = {10},
number = {5},
issn = {2041-210X},
address = {Oxford [u.a.]},
publisher = {Wiley},
reportid = {FZJ-2019-05612},
pages = {702 - 711},
year = {2019},
abstract = {Root traits get increasing attention as functional
equivalents of above‐ground traits. Image analysis
software such as WinRhizo™ and $IJ_Rhizo$ facilitate root
trait analyses. Delory et al. (2017) presented a comparison
between the accuracy of WinRhizo™ and $IJ_Rhizo$ for
measuring root length. We complement their analyses with a
comparison of diameter and volume estimates and a comparison
of different image resolutions with manual and automatic
threshold. We analysed 100 images of fibrous and taproot
systems, which were obtained using the root model
ArchiSimple. As a result, for each image, diameter, length
and volume were known. The images were analysed with
WinRhizo™ and $IJ_Rhizo$ and we compared the estimates of
diameter, length and volume to ground‐truth values. We
further computed relative errors and their magnitude and
analysed their dependency on image characteristics and root
system properties. At 1,200 and 800 dpi, diameter and length
estimates provided by WinRhizo™ and $IJ_Rhizo$ were of
comparable accuracy. Diameter errors were balanced. Volume
estimates were subjected to a systematic error caused by the
assumption of constant diameter. WinRhizo™, however,
provides the opportunity to calculate correctly computed
volumes from diameter classes. At 1,200 dpi, $IJ_Rhizo$
failed to automatically find an appropriate threshold for
pixel classification, which fundamentally decreased
accuracy. The magnitude of diameter errors increased with
root overlap for $IJ_Rhizo.$ The length errors increased
with increasing root length, overlap and root length density
for WinRhizo™. The magnitude of underestimation of the
volume (WinRhizo™) decreased with volume. It was higher
for taproot than for fibrous root systems. All errors
increased with lower resolution. Our results confirm the
results of Delory et al. (2017) regarding the accuracy for
length. They further confirm that estimates derived from
different software packages or at different resolution
should not be compared directly. The characteristics of root
systems should be standardized for image analysis. The
dependency of errors on the response variable of interest
can influence the effect size and increase the probability
of errors. Validation of methods should be conducted for
each analysed dataset. New image analysis tools should be
validated against a real ground‐truth.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {570},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
(POF3-255)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000471332800010},
doi = {10.1111/2041-210X.13156},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/866522},
}