XintongHe commited on
Commit
34a4f33
1 Parent(s): 8c53e04

Update README.md

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +2 -58
README.md CHANGED
@@ -83,33 +83,8 @@ Machine learning (ML) algorithms have shown potential in automatically detecting
83
 
84
  <!-- This section describes the source data (e.g. news text and headlines, social media posts, translated sentences, ...). -->
85
  The study utilized stomatal images from two datasets: Hardwood and Populus spp., acquired from 2015 to 2022. The Hardwood dataset contained 16 species, including American elm (Ulmus americana Planch), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda Raf.), Nuttall oak (Quercus texana Buckley), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata (Mill.) K. Koch), Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii Buckley), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii Nutt.), water oak (Quercus nigra L.), willow oak (Quercus phellos L.), ash (Fraxinus L.), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica Marshall), deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum Linneaus), leatherwood (Dirca palustris L.), red maple (Acer rubrum L.), post oak (Quercus stellata Wangenh.), willow (Salix spp.), and winged elm (Ulmus alata Michx.), with the age of seedlings ranging from 1–3 years for Nuttall oak, water oak, and Shumard oak, and 30–50 years for the rest. Using a compound light microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) equipped with a digital microscope camera (MU300, AmScope, USA) with a 5 mm lens and a fixed microscope adapter (FMA050, AmScope), over 10,000 stomatal images were captured. The Populus dataset consisted of over 3,000 images from 55 genotypes of seven taxa of hybrid poplar and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), which were 4 to 5 years old.
86
- #### Data Collection and Processing
87
 
88
- <!-- This section describes the data collection and processing process such as data selection criteria, filtering and normalization methods, tools and libraries used, etc. -->
89
 
90
- [More Information Needed]
91
-
92
- #### Who are the source data producers?
93
-
94
- <!-- This section describes the people or systems who originally created the data. It should also include self-reported demographic or identity information for the source data creators if this information is available. -->
95
-
96
- [More Information Needed]
97
-
98
- ### Annotations [optional]
99
-
100
- <!-- If the dataset contains annotations which are not part of the initial data collection, use this section to describe them. -->
101
-
102
- #### Annotation process
103
-
104
- <!-- This section describes the annotation process such as annotation tools used in the process, the amount of data annotated, annotation guidelines provided to the annotators, interannotator statistics, annotation validation, etc. -->
105
-
106
- [More Information Needed]
107
-
108
- #### Who are the annotators?
109
-
110
- <!-- This section describes the people or systems who created the annotations. -->
111
-
112
- [More Information Needed]
113
 
114
  ## Bias, Risks, and Limitations
115
 
@@ -117,38 +92,7 @@ The study utilized stomatal images from two datasets: Hardwood and Populus spp.,
117
  This dataset includes only images of stomata from hardwood trees and Populus, limiting its applicability for studying stomata of other tree genera, though it may serve as reference data. This dataset is not divided into training and testing sets; users must divide it themselves when necessary.Despite following rigorous procedures in collecting leaves and micrographs, considering human and instrumental errors, there's a possibility of inaccuracies in the images and their associated information within the datasets. Even though the annotation process employed pre-trained model labeling methods, complemented by quick checks using LabelImg, potential model and computational errors could still lead to incorrect annotations.
118
 
119
 
120
- ### Recommendations
121
-
122
- <!-- This section is meant to convey recommendations with respect to the bias, risk, and technical limitations. -->
123
-
124
- Users should be made aware of the risks, biases and limitations of the dataset. More information needed for further recommendations.
125
-
126
- ## Citation [optional]
127
 
128
  <!-- If there is a paper or blog post introducing the dataset, the APA and Bibtex information for that should go in this section. -->
129
-
130
- **BibTeX:**
131
-
132
- [More Information Needed]
133
-
134
- **APA:**
135
-
136
- [More Information Needed]
137
-
138
- ## Glossary [optional]
139
-
140
- <!-- If relevant, include terms and calculations in this section that can help readers understand the dataset or dataset card. -->
141
-
142
- [More Information Needed]
143
-
144
- ## More Information [optional]
145
-
146
- [More Information Needed]
147
-
148
- ## Dataset Card Authors [optional]
149
-
150
- [More Information Needed]
151
-
152
- ## Dataset Card Contact
153
-
154
- [More Information Needed]
 
83
 
84
  <!-- This section describes the source data (e.g. news text and headlines, social media posts, translated sentences, ...). -->
85
  The study utilized stomatal images from two datasets: Hardwood and Populus spp., acquired from 2015 to 2022. The Hardwood dataset contained 16 species, including American elm (Ulmus americana Planch), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda Raf.), Nuttall oak (Quercus texana Buckley), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata (Mill.) K. Koch), Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii Buckley), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii Nutt.), water oak (Quercus nigra L.), willow oak (Quercus phellos L.), ash (Fraxinus L.), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica Marshall), deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum Linneaus), leatherwood (Dirca palustris L.), red maple (Acer rubrum L.), post oak (Quercus stellata Wangenh.), willow (Salix spp.), and winged elm (Ulmus alata Michx.), with the age of seedlings ranging from 1–3 years for Nuttall oak, water oak, and Shumard oak, and 30–50 years for the rest. Using a compound light microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) equipped with a digital microscope camera (MU300, AmScope, USA) with a 5 mm lens and a fixed microscope adapter (FMA050, AmScope), over 10,000 stomatal images were captured. The Populus dataset consisted of over 3,000 images from 55 genotypes of seven taxa of hybrid poplar and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), which were 4 to 5 years old.
 
86
 
 
87
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
88
 
89
  ## Bias, Risks, and Limitations
90
 
 
92
  This dataset includes only images of stomata from hardwood trees and Populus, limiting its applicability for studying stomata of other tree genera, though it may serve as reference data. This dataset is not divided into training and testing sets; users must divide it themselves when necessary.Despite following rigorous procedures in collecting leaves and micrographs, considering human and instrumental errors, there's a possibility of inaccuracies in the images and their associated information within the datasets. Even though the annotation process employed pre-trained model labeling methods, complemented by quick checks using LabelImg, potential model and computational errors could still lead to incorrect annotations.
93
 
94
 
95
+ ## Citation
 
 
 
 
 
 
96
 
97
  <!-- If there is a paper or blog post introducing the dataset, the APA and Bibtex information for that should go in this section. -->
98
+ Wang, J., Renninger, H.J. & Ma, Q. Labeled temperate hardwood tree stomatal image datasets from seven taxa of Populus and 17 hardwood species. Sci Data 11, 1 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02657-3