From Plants to Landmarks: Time-invariant Plant Localization that uses
Deep Pose Regression in Agricultural Fields

arXiv:1709.04751v1 [cs.RO] 14 Sep 2017

Florian Kraemer

Alexander Schaefer

Andreas Eitel

Abstract— Agricultural robots are expected to increase yields
in a sustainable way and automate precision tasks, such as
weeding and plant monitoring. At the same time, they move
in a continuously changing, semi-structured field environment,
in which features can hardly be found and reproduced at a
later time. Challenges for Lidar and visual detection systems
stem from the fact that plants can be very small, overlapping
and have a steadily changing appearance. Therefore, a popular
way to localize vehicles with high accuracy is based on expensive global navigation satellite systems and not on natural
landmarks. The contribution of this work is a novel imagebased plant localization technique that uses the time-invariant
stem emerging point as a reference. Our approach is based
on a fully convolutional neural network that learns landmark
localization from RGB and NIR image input in an end-to-end
manner. The network performs pose regression to generate a
plant location likelihood map. Our approach allows us to cope
with visual variances of plants both for different species and
different growth stages. We achieve high localization accuracies
as shown in detailed evaluations of a sugar beet cultivation
phase. In experiments with our BoniRob we demonstrate that
detections can be robustly reproduced with centimeter accuracy.

I. INTRODUCTION
The growth of the world population is predicted to not
saturate until 2050 and its increasing demands must be
met. The agricultural output is expected to rise by 60 %
while the available farmland will experience competition
from the growing interest in bio-fuels. At the same time,
modern agricultural systems are based on untargeted use of
pesticides and inorganic nutrients. Their use is already in
question nowadays and some demand permacultures and less
interference with biological systems that contribute naturally
to the agricultural output [3].
The concept of Precision Farming might lower environmental impact while promising affordable, organic production with high yields. Agricultural robots form the backbone
of this system. They navigate the fields autonomously and
intervene only in a targeted way. For example, weeds are
removed precisely by mechanical tools, and fertilizers can
be placed selectively for individually monitored plants.
However, a mobile robot must be able to localize itself
in order to work autonomously. This is particularly true for
agricultural high-precision tasks. Current agricultural robot
implementations for fields rely on high-precision global
navigation satellite systems (GNSS) to localize precisely.
Examples are the system of Bakker et al. [1], the BoniRob
All authors are with the Department of Computer Science at the University of Freiburg, Germany. This work has partially been supported by
the European Commission under the grant number H2020-ICT-644227FLOURISH.

Johan Vertens

Regression FCNN

Wolfram Burgard

SEP Pose Likelihood

SEP Positions

Fig. 1: Deducing the Stem Emerging Points (SEPs) from RGB and NIR
input images: We train a fully convolutional neural network (FCNN) to
predict a pose likelihood map, from which we extract the SEP positions.

setup without our extension [12], and AgBot/SwarmBot [2],
which can also localize temporarily by visual row tracking.
But this kind of GNSS requires the setup of a base station.
Additionally, poor signals due to forest borders and at longer
distances from the base station can lower the accuracy. An
alternative to GNSS is that the robot maps its surrounding
and localizes itself based on reproducible features. The semistructured and changing field environment, depicted in Fig. 3,
poses a difficult situation when not relying on artificial landmarks. Here, it is highly challenging to reproduce standard
image and point cloud features after some days. Therefore,
this work proposes time-invariant plant localization from
multi-spectral images to lower the dependency on GNSS
systems. The estimated locations can be used in robotic
mapping and localization approaches as landmarks and allow
the robot to pursue its precision tasks.
The key idea for the time-invariant plant localization is
that the point of plant emergence never changes. To detect
the Stem Emerging Points (SEPs) in images we use a fully
convolutional neural network to generate a pose likelihood
map, as depicted in Fig. 1. From the pose likelihood map,
we extract SEPs for all plant species occurring in sugar beet
fields and for different plant growth stages.
Sugar beets, among other root vegetables like carrots,
onions, or radish, offer a good experimental environment for
agricultural robots, since they are planted in well-traversable
rows. Sugar beets grow near the ground and must be monitored for a period of six to eight weeks until the field
enters the pre-harvesting phase [4]. The field may contain
severe plant overlaps and different weed species, as shown
in example field images in Fig. 2. To account for difficult real
world scenarios, we extract plant locations not only for sugar
beet plants, but also for weeds present in these fields. This
allows including all plants in mapping and localization tasks,
as well as targeting weed removal actions more precisely.
Our evaluation covers the full evolution of a sugar beet field

IROS 2017 AGROB Workshop

a) Young, well separated sugar beet

b) Intruding grass weed

Fig. 3: Flourish/Bonirob on a sugar beet field 4 weeks and 8 weeks after
germination [4]. The experimental setup is mounted under the robot, shields
sunlight and records high-resolution RGB and NIR plant images.

observed from a ground robot. It shows the SEP localization
accuracy for different growth stages and weed densities.
We make the following contributions: 1) A SEP localization approach based on pose regression and fully convolutional neural networks, 2) a comprehensive evaluation on
hand-annotated image data with several detection measures
focusing on long-term robustness and comparing the novel
approach with two baseline approaches, 3) a comparison
of landmark maps generated by our BoniRob, showing the
reliability of SEP landmarks over time, and 4) a dataset for
plant localization and evaluation tools, available at:
http://plantcentroids.cs.uni-freiburg.de.

ridges detected in RGB-images to the center. Their approach
only works for specific crop types and their ground-plant
segmentation fails for early growth stages. Most similar to
our work, Haug et al. [7] perform machine learning-based
SEP localization in an organic carrot field. They classify
key points sampled equally-spaced from plant areas in NDVI
images. As a classifier, they employ a Random Forest with
hand-crafted statistical and geometrical features for different
patch sizes. Their evaluation over 25 images takes one point
in time into account and they find weaknesses of the classifier
for plant overlaps and locally misleading plant shapes. Our
work overcomes these by supplying a broader field of view
to the classifier and by avoiding hand-crafted features that
might only work for limited scenarios and plant species.
The field of image landmark localization is important to
our pose regression approach. Tompson et al. [13] estimate
likelihood maps of hand joint locations based on depth
images. However, without any upsampling operation in their
network architecture, they generate a coarse output of less
than a fifth of the input size. Zhang et al. [16] overcome
this drawback by using a fully convolutional neural network
(FCNN). This allows them to generate likelihood maps with
input image resolution.

II. RELATED WORK

III. APPROACH

Plant localization is useful for agricultural robots in a number of ways. In orchards, the semi-structured environment
has been used for mapping and localization purposes: Cheein
et al. [5] find olive tree stems by camera and laser scanner
detection, which then work as landmarks in a SLAM system.
Several approaches exist for individual field plant detection and SEP localization, many of which are highly usecase adapted and based on heuristics. Midtiby et al. [11]
follow sugar beet leaf contours to find the SEPs. This works
only for very early growth stages without overlapping leaves.
Jin et al. [9] focus on corn plants, but use RGB-D data.
Again, they make strong model assumptions and follow
the plants’ image skeletons towards minima in the height
domain. Weiss and Biber [15] segment plants based on point
cloud clusters and estimate the plant positions at the median
points of the clusters. Since this might fail for overlapping
plants, Gai et al. [6] extend this approach and follow leaf

We localize the SEPs in multi-spectral images by solving a
pose regression problem with a neural network. FCNNs can
learn in an end-to-end manner to output a pose likelihood
map with high-resolution output. FCNNs generally feature a
contracting path similar to commonly used image classification networks. In addition, FCNNs upsample the coarselyresoluted bottleneck feature maps and localize features in an
expanding path [10]. Formally, the problem is to assign every
pixel a likelihood p : x 7→ IR depending on the distance to
the next SEP location. We generate the ground truth values
as r : x 7→ [0, 1] to obtain a normalized network output that
allows postprocessing it as likelihood maps.
In order to compute the pixel-wise ground truth regression
values r, we annotate the plant locations for every input
image by hand, following a set of rules: For rosette-type
plants, like sugar beet, the SEPs can be determined efficiently
by following the leaf stems. For herbaceous plants, like

c) Deformation producing side view

d) Overlaps at later growth stages

Fig. 2: Four examples of typically observed plants: a) and b) are taken
6 weeks, c) 7 weeks and d) 8 weeks after germination.

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Fig. 4: An example of the likelihood map ground truth generation taken
from the sixth week after sugar beet germination. The RGB image (left)
shows two sugar beet and several grass weed plants. The likelihood values
(right) have been computed with σ = 50 px for visualization purposes.

grass weeds, the region of emergence can be arbitrarily
shaped. In these cases, the emergence region is marked with
a polygon contour. A post-processing step then estimates the
SEP coordinates as the region’s center of mass. Cases in
which the human expert is uncertain are filtered out.
From the ground truth SEP coordinates in every image
set, we generate a likelihood map that is used for training
the network. First, a distance transform produces a map of
distances to the closest ground truth SEP position xSEP :
d(x) = min kx − xSEP k2
xSEP ∈GT

(1)

Next, we transform the resulting distance map to a Gaussian
ground truth likelihood map using
−d(x)2
,
(2)
2σ 2
where σ is a parameter that determines the decay of likelihood with increasing distance. Fig. 4 shows a corresponding
likelihood map. We use the validation image set to tune σ for
the best precision-recall relation. In our use-case, we achieve
good results for σ values from 15 px to 19 px.
We use the L2-Norm, or Euclidean distance, of the network’s regression score p and the ground truth r to compute
the loss during network training. The weight optimization by
stochastic gradient descent can accordingly be formulated as
minimizing the energy function for all pixel locations Ω:
r(x) = exp

E=

X

kr(x) − p(x)k22

Fig. 5: Trained network likelihood map output (right), RGB image depicted
for input visualization (left): Big grass weeds produce spread-out likelihood
peaks, which are more spiked for rosette-type plants. Even hidden, small
grass weeds are detected (see bottom image, upper left corner).

(3)

x∈Ω

Solving the pose regression problem does not depend on
a specific fully convolutional neural network architecture.
Instead, architectures commonly used for semantic segmentation problems can be adapted to our problem. We employ
the architecture of MultiNet (the expert network from [14]),
which has been successfully deployed with the restrictions
of mobile robotics. The low number of parameters, when
compared to e.g. FCN8 [10], fits the memory capabilities of
current embedded devices and allows processing our image
stream in real-time at about 4 Hz. Additionally, the number
of parameters hinders overfitting, when working with small
data sets. MultiNet extends the ResNet50 architecture in

several domains: The first feature maps are kept at a higher
resolution since they need to be reused in the expanding path
later on. Additionally, it extends the residual blocks to two
parallel convolutions, one of which has a wider kernel, to
learn multi-scale features. We use a Euclidean loss layer and
implement the neural network in the Caffe framework [8].
The image input in the experiments is downsampled by a
factor of 2 to capture plants entirely. We stack the RGB and
NIR images channel-wise and crop them to fit the network
input size of 4 × 512 × 512 (channels×width×height).
Examples for a trained network’s output can be seen in
Fig. 5 where the likelihood map contains flat basins for
regions distant to SEPs. Furthermore, high likelihood regions
correspond to the Gaussian likelihoods given in the ground
truth, but they are usually more elongated. For herbaceous
plants, the peaks can be arbitrarily shaped. Generally, the
peaks reach different likelihood values. Their height can be
seen as an indicator for the network’s confidence or pseudoprobability for a detection.
The final step of our SEP localization approach is to
extract the SEP coordinates from the likelihood map. First,
we segment the likelihood map into basins and peak regions
using Otsu’s method. SEP locations are then determined as
the center of mass for every likelihood peak region. The
confidence score for a detection is deduced as a region’s
average likelihood. Scoring by the average value of a peak
region reflects that detections are less confident when the
likelihood peak is spread out. This way of confidence scoring
performs better in our tests than relying on a peak region’s
maximum likelihood value.

IV. EXPERIMENTS

Precision

Precision

0.8

0.6
0.4
Regr.
Segm.
SVM

0.2
0

0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Recall

Regr.
Segm.
SVM
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Recall

Precision

0.2

1

Regr.
Segm.
SVM

0.8

0.4

0.8

B–W5 18 px

1

0.6

0.6
0.4
0.2

0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Recall

0.8

0

1

C–W8 6 px

1

0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Recall

Precision

0.4
0.2

1

Regr.
Segm.

0.8

0.6

0.8

C–W8 18 px

1

Regr.
Segm.

0.8

0

0.4

0

1

Regr.
Segm.
SVM

0.8
Precision

0.8

0.6

0.2

B–W5 6 px

1

0

A–W4 18 px

1

0.8

Precision

First, we compare our pose regression approach with two
baselines using a hand-annotated field image test data set.
Then, we evaluate the reliability of the our approach, when
plant locations are used as landmarks in a field mapping task.
As a first baseline, we re-implement the approach of Haug
et al. [7]. We found that it copes better with the big variances
in our dataset when the feature set and classifier are adapted.
Instead of hand-crafted features, we use HOG-features of
NDVI images. We sample the key points with a stride of
10 px and derive features by using patch sizes of 40 px,
80 px, 160 px and 320 px. The classification of every key
point’s features is performed by an SVM with a radial basis
function kernel.
As a second baseline, we extend the first baseline to also
show the performance of a state-of-the-art classifier in this
scenario. Here, instead of coarsely sampled key points, we
use the pixel-wise classifications of a segmentation FCNN.
The FCNN learns to classify for every pixel whether it
belongs to the Background, Vegetation or Stem Emerging
Region class. The Vegetation class is introduced to enable
the learning of richer features through finer class partitioning.
Also, the intermediate step of estimating regions of stem
emergence rather than one stem emerging point per plant
has been introduced to keep class imbalances low. The SEPs
are then determined in a post-processing step as the center
of mass for a given stem emerging connected component in
the segmentation mask. We estimate a confidence score for
every region/SEP as the mean of pixel-wise network score
differences between the stem emerging and the other classes.
In contrast to our regression approach, here, we annotate
pixel-wise to generate ground truth segmentation masks.

A–W4 6 px

1

0.6
0.4
0.2

0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Recall

0.8

1

0

0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Recall

0.8

1

Fig. 6: Precision-recall relationship of SEP localizations derived for three
test image sets taken 4, 5 and 8 weeks after sugar beet germination. The B–
W5 data set additionally has a very high weed density. Acceptance ranges
are 6 px and 18 px. The first baseline is abbreviated as SVM, the second
as Segm. and our approach as Regr.

A. Test Image Set Comparison
In this experiment, we evaluate the two baselines and
our approach, using hand-annotated ground truth images.
All data is sampled from the Flourish Data Acquisition
Campaign 2016 [4] (see Fig. 3). Among other sensors, it
features high-precision GNSS, odometry and a multi-spectral
camera. The camera records high-resolution image streams
of the traversed sugar beet rows with an RGB spectrum
of 400 nm to 680 nm and an NIR spectrum of 730 nm to
950 nm. We use the aligned image channels to create a
dataset. Accordingly, we label several sequences of about
300 images each, taken from different rows and on different
days. We denote them X–Wy where X is a unique identifier
and y the number of weeks after sugar beet germination. We
use entire sequences to split the dataset into training and test
partitions, since the images sequences are locally correlated.
To evaluate the output of an approach, we compute the
distance d = mini∈GT kxi − xk2 between the approaches’
SEP detections and the ground truth SEP locations. Following standards in detection evaluation, we sort them by
their confidence score in descending order. Subsequently,
we check whether the distance error lies below a threshold
and only accept the highest scored detection per ground
truth label. The threshold is varied from 6 px to 18 px,

which corresponds to a ground resolution of about 3.6 mm to
8.4 mm at the image nadir (neglecting ground unevenness).
The binary result of being accepted or not allows us to use
the quantitative measures of precision and recall. In order to
depict the distance errors better, we compute their mean for
all accepted detections, the mean accepted distance (MAD),
and associate it with the Average Precision (AP). In this case,
we accept a detection if it is closer than the minimal plant
distance in the dataset, 20 px, which we see as a natural
boundary for acceptance.
All approaches of this comparison need to be trained.
The SVM baseline is trained on the H–W5 sequence only,
since more samples make the fitting process problematic.
The segmentation (second baseline) and regression networks
are trained on the G–W5, H–W5, I–W6, J–W8 and K–
W8 sequences, which add up to 1398 images. They cover
four weeks of sugar beet field evolution and have a varying
weed content. We augment the image set by systematically
sampling 8 rotated and 2 mirrored versions as well as 4
randomly cropped versions of the input images. Then, we
train both networks for 50 000 iterations and a mini-batch
size of 4 from scratch.

Dataset
A–W4

B–W5

C–W8

Approach
SVM
Segm.
Regr.
SVM
Segm.
Regr.
SVM
Segm.
Regr.

AP
0.515
0.798
0.796
0.054
0.285
0.432
–
0.447
0.513

MAD [px]
10.12
5.82
5.90
10.58
8.43
7.96
–
10.98
10.05

TABLE I: Average Precision (AP) and Mean Accepted Distances (MAD)
for the test image set comparison. 1 pixel corresponds to about 0.6 mm
ground resolution. The first baseline is abbreviated as SVM, the second as
Segm. and our approach as Regr.

Fig. 7: 4 day comparison between geo-referenced images taken in the
scope of the E–W5 (left) and F–W6 sequences. Detections from regression
approach (circles). One weed has died and can not be matched. Only little
growth is observable, the soil structure is still the same.

B. Landmark Reproducibility
Early Growth Stage: The A–W4 sequence of
100 images was recorded when most sugar beet plants were
in a growth stage of two to four leaves and one plant’s leaves
rarely overlap. The individuals are usually well separated
by soil. Also, only few weeds are visible such that the
ground truth contains 166 instances of sugar beet and only
10 instances of weed plants. Fig. 6 shows large differences
in precision and recall between the SVM baseline and the
neural network based approaches. However, the network
approaches can not clearly be separated. Tab. I shows both
neural network approaches performing very similar with
about 80 % AP and only 5.9 px MAD.
Weed-Affected: The B–W5 sequence is an example for
a more weed affected situation. The ground truth features
330 instances of sugar beet and 1427 instances of weed
plants. This high weed density can occur due to non-effective
pest control or on the borders of a field. Accordingly, the
images contain a higher visual variance, as different plant
species occur and leaves often overlap. Here, the precision
recall relationships in Fig. 6 separate the approaches better.
Our approach can handle the high number of weed plants
better than the baselines for both distance thresholds. As
described in Tab. I, the pose regression approach reaches as
low as 7.96 px in MAD, which is a relative improvement
of 5.9 % over the segmentation network approach. More
importantly, it performs a relative 51.6 % better in AP. The
SVM baseline underperforms in this scenario.
Late Growth Stage: The C–W8 sequence was recorded
at the end of the crop management phase. Pest control
has been successful for our test field so that this sequence
features 369 instances of sugar beet and only 5 instances of
weed plants (see Fig. 2d for an example image). The SVM
baseline would need a separate training specifically for this
growth stage. Also, the neural network baseline performed
generally better in the other test sequences, for which reason
we exclude the SVM for the late growth stage. The results
in Fig. 6 show that the regression approach achieves higher
precision rates. Tab. I shows the mean accepted distance
errors where regression ranks again before segmentation. It
performs a relative 14.7 % better in AP and has a 9.3 %
relative improvement in mean accepted distance. The lower
accuracy compared to the A–W4 sequence, with comparably
low amounts of weed plants, could be explained by the older
sugar beet plants containing less texture in their center.

This experiment evaluates the pose regression SEP localization approach in the robotic use-case by comparing two
mapping runs of the agricultural robot. Effectively, this shows
how system uncertainties influence the geo-referencing and
reproducibility of SEP landmarks. We evaluate the long-term
reliability by varying the time between two mapping runs,
taking the data again from [4].
The pipeline to produce a metric SEP landmark map from
the image detections is as follows: A high-precision GNSS
is employed for all mapping runs to assign a reference pose
to every image. Empirical evaluation of the GNSS showed
that 50 % of position errors ranged below 3.1 mm and
95 % below 7.9 mm. Additionally, we improve the estimated
positions by averaging the GPS fixes during constant robot
motion and fuse odometry measurements in an Unscented
Kalman Filter. We use the Kalman filter’s pose estimations as
the origin for a pinhole camera projection (neglecting ground
unevenness). As the image recording produces overlapping
image regions, we merge landmarks in the metric map if they
are closer than the GNSS system’s 95 % error range.
The evaluation is then done by matching the landmarks for
minimal Euclidean distance in two overlaid metric landmark
maps. From the resulting error distance distribution we
choose the 3σ-range (about 70 mm in both experiments)
as an acceptance range for a match. We show figures for
precision and recall rates given this acceptance range and
evaluate the continuous distance errors.
Evolution over 4 Days: The E–W5 has been recorded
4 days before the F–W6 sequence in the same traversing
direction. Still, Fig. 7 gives an impression of how different
perceptions of the field environment can be even for a
short time-span: The ground might still show the same soil
structure, but plants can hardly be associated by their appearance. The leaf angle distribution can change and the earlier
sequence generally shows more shimmering leaf surfaces due
to more moisture on that day. The error distributions in x
and y directions have a very low bias (µx = 1.2 mm, σx =
16.7 mm, µy = −2.9 mm, σy = 13.3 mm), which shows that
the underlying pose-estimation is working properly.
As a result, 302 plants are matched successfully and
only 12 outliers are found. Since the second mapping run
finds 345 SEPs, the corresponding recall rate is 96.2 % and
precision equals 87.5 %. The resulting errors with a mean of
µ = 18.41 mm are depicted in Fig. 9. Note that this is an

Fig. 8: Geo-referenced images with a 28 day difference and severe changes
in plant and soil appearance. Detections from regression approach (circles).
1
0.9
0.8

R EFERENCES

0.7
Recall

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

to reproduce hundreds of landmarks with precision/recall
rates of about 90 % and mean errors as low as 20 mm. For
future work, we expect better regression network results if
the likelihood decay parameter is chosen depending on the
plant size. This might increase accuracies for plants that offer
less texture in the plant center, like sugar beets in late growth
stages. Our approach will also benefit from advances made in
the field of FCNNs. We will implement a robot localization
approach based on our work, which enables an agricultural
robot to navigate autonomously without the disadvantages of
a high-precision GNSS.

4 Days
28 Days
0

10

20

30
40
Distance Error [mm]

50

60

70

Fig. 9: Comparison of metric landmark maps for a 4 day and 28 day time
span. The curves show the euclidean distance errors if every SEP landmark
from an initial map is matched with the closest one in a later map.

upper bound, as it also contains the GNSS uncertainty.
Evolution over 28 Days: The D–W4 sequence shows
images from an early growth stage of two main leaves. The
C–W8 sequence has been recorded 28 days later in opposite
driving direction, shortly before the pre-harvesting phase of
the field starts. Accordingly, the plants have grown a lot,
overlapping plants are common and the leaves extend a lot
more as can be seen in the comparison in Fig. 8.
The evaluation shows 34 outliers for 291 SEPs landmarks
in the earlier map. This corresponds to a recall rate of 88.3 %
and precision rate of 92.8 %. The distance errors of matched
landmarks are shown in Fig. 9 (µ = 20.8 mm). This map
comparison shows slightly higher mapping errors than the
experiment over 4 days and at earlier growth stages did. This
corresponds to the image comparison experiment where later
growth stages produced larger distance errors. We conclude
that the landmark matching over this long period shows good
reliability and accuracy.
V. CONCLUSIONS
We present an approach for time-invariant plant localization on RGB and NIR image data. Based on an FCNN and
pose regression, it outperforms state-of-the-art approaches.
We show that the resulting localizations, when compared
with an image ground truth, achieve high precision and recall
rates, while mean distance errors can be expected to be
as low as 5 px to 11 px. The image data set, ground truth
annotations, and evaluation tools are publicly available. For
the agricultural robot scenario, we show that the SEP detections can be used as anonymous landmarks: We were able

[1] Tijmen Bakker, Kees van Asselt, Jan Bontsema, Joachim Müller, and
Gerrit van Straten. Autonomous navigation using a robot platform in
a sugar beet field. Biosystems Engineering, 109(4):357 – 368, 2011.
[2] David Ball, Patrick Ross, Andrew English, Peter Milani, Daniel
Richards, Andrew Bate, Ben Upcroft, Gordon Wyeth, and Peter Corke.
Farm workers of the future: Vision-based robotics for broad-acre
agriculture. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 2017.
[3] Riccardo Bommarco, David Kleijn, and Simon G Potts. Ecological
intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends
in ecology & evolution, 28(4):230–238, 2013.
[4] Nived Chebrolu, Philipp Lottes, Alexander Schaefer, Wera Winterhalter, Wolfram Burgard, and Cyrill Stachniss. Agricultural robot dataset
for plant classification, localization and mapping on sugar beet fields.
The International Journal of Robotics Research (IJRR), 2017.
[5] F. Auat Cheein, G. Steiner, G. Perez Paina, and R. Carelli. Optimized
EIF-SLAM algorithm for precision agriculture mapping based on
stems detection. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 78(2):195
– 207, 2011.
[6] Jingyao Gai, Lie Tang, and Brian Steward. Plant localization and
discrimination using 2D+3D computer vision for robotic intra-row
weed control. In 2016 ASABE Annual International Meeting, page 1.
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2016.
[7] S. Haug, P. Biber, A. Michaels, and J. Ostermann. Plant stem
detection and position estimation using machine vision. In Workshop
Proceedings of IAS-13, ser. 13th Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Autonomous
Systems, pages 483–490, 2014.
[8] Yangqing Jia, Evan Shelhamer, Jeff Donahue, Sergey Karayev,
Jonathan Long, Ross Girshick, Sergio Guadarrama, and Trevor Darrell.
Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1408.5093, 2014.
[9] Jian Jin and Lie Tang. Corn plant sensing using real-time stereo vision.
Journal of Field Robotics, 26(6-7):591–608, 2009.
[10] Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages
3431–3440, 2015.
[11] Henrik S Midtiby, Thomas M Giselsson, and Rasmus N Jørgensen.
Estimating the plant stem emerging points (PSEPs) of sugar beets at
early growth stages. Biosystems engineering, 111(1):83–90, 2012.
[12] Arno Ruckelshausen, Peter Biber, Michael Dorna, Holger Gremmes,
Ralph Klose, Andreas Linz, Florian Rahe, Rainer Resch, Marius Thiel,
Dieter Trautz, et al. Bonirob–an autonomous field robot platform for
individual plant phenotyping. Precision agriculture, 9(841):1, 2009.
[13] Jonathan Tompson, Murphy Stein, Yann Lecun, and Ken Perlin. Realtime continuous pose recovery of human hands using convolutional
networks. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 33(5):169, 2014.
[14] Abhinav Valada, Johan Vertens, Ankit Dhall, and Wolfram Burgard.
Adapnet: Adaptive semantic segmentation in adverse environmental
conditions. In Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics
& Automation (ICRA), Singapore, 2017.
[15] Ulrich Weiss and Peter Biber. Plant detection and mapping for
agricultural robots using a 3D Lidar sensor. Robotics and autonomous
systems, 59(5):265–273, 2011.
[16] Ning Zhang, Evan Shelhamer, Yang Gao, and Trevor Darrell. Finegrained pose prediction, normalization, and recognition. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1511.07063, 2015.

