The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Low-Cost 3D Systems: Suitable Tools for Plant Phenotyping
Open accessAbstract
Over the last few years, 3D imaging of plant geometry has become of significant importance for phenotyping and plant breeding. Several sensing techniques, like 3D reconstruction from multiple images and laser scanning, are the methods of choice in different research projects. The use of RGBcameras for 3D reconstruction requires a significant amount of post-processing, whereas in this context, laser scanning needs huge investment costs. The aim of the present study is a comparison between two current 3D imaging low-cost systems and a high precision close-up laser scanner as a reference method. As low-cost systems, the David laser scanning system and the Microsoft Kinect Device were used. The 3D measuring accuracy of both low-cost sensors was estimated based on the deviations of test specimens. Parameters extracted from the volumetric shape of sugar beet taproots, the leaves of sugar beets and the shape of wheat ears were evaluated. These parameters are compared regarding accuracy and correlation to reference measurements. The evaluation scenarios were chosen with respect to recorded plant parameters in current phenotyping projects. In the present study, low-cost 3D imaging devices have been shown to be highly reliable for the demands of plant phenotyping, with the potential to be implemented in automated application procedures, while saving acquisition costs. Our study confirms that a carefully selected low-cost sensor
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A method for registration of 3-D shapes
Besl, P. J., & McKay, N. D. (1992) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/34.121791 · Cited by 18,103
3D is here: Point Cloud Library (PCL)
Rusu, R. B., & Cousins, S. (2011) · 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation · doi:10.1109/icra.2011.5980567 · Cited by 4,885
KinectFusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking
Newcombe, R. A., Fitzgibbon, A., Izadi, S., Hilliges, O., Molyneaux, D., Kim, D., Davison, A. J., Kohi, P., Shotton, J., & Hodges, S. (2011) · 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality · doi:10.1109/ismar.2011.6092378 · Cited by 4,008
Phenomics – technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck
Furbank, R. T., & Tester, M. (2011) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2011.09.005 · Cited by 1,675
Accuracy and Resolution of Kinect Depth Data for Indoor Mapping Applications
Khoshelham, K., & Elberink, S. O. (2012) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s120201437 · Cited by 1,595
Evans, J. R., & Poorter, H. (2001) · Plant, Cell & Environment · doi:10.1046/j.1365-3040.2001.00724.x · Cited by 1,229
RGB-D mapping: Using Kinect-style depth cameras for dense 3D modeling of indoor environments
Henry, P., Krainin, M., Herbst, E., Ren, X., & Fox, D. (2012) · The International Journal of Robotics Research · doi:10.1177/0278364911434148 · Cited by 1,161
Erratum: Competition among memes in a world with limited attention
Weng, L., Flammini, A., Vespignani, A., & Menczer, F. (2013) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep02304 · Cited by 1,002
Future Scenarios for Plant Phenotyping
Fiorani, F., & Schurr, U. (2013) · Annual Review of Plant Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120137 · Cited by 995
Kintinuous: Spatially Extended KinectFusion
Whelan, T. J., Kaess, M., Fallon, M. F., Johannsson, H., Leonard, J. J., & McDonald, J. (2012) · Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) · Cited by 590
Cited by
Mahlein, A.-K. (2016) · Plant Disease · doi:10.1094/pdis-03-15-0340-fe · Cited by 1,363
Self-citationCoping with drought: stress and adaptive responses in potato and perspectives for improvement
Obidiegwu, J. E. (2015) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2015.00542 · Cited by 362
Fu, L., Gao, F., Wu, J., Li, R., Karkee, M., & Zhang, Q. (2020) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2020.105687 · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- Paulus, S., Behmann, J., Mahlein, A.-K., Plümer, L., & Kuhlmann, H.
- Venue
- Sensors
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2014-02-14
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 3001-3018
- ISSN
- 1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2006976511
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 31.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Low-Cost 3D Systems: Suitable Tools for Plant Phenotyping. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/s140203001
- The paper
- Paulus, S., Behmann, J., Mahlein, A.-K., Plümer, L., & Kuhlmann, H. (2014). Low-Cost 3D Systems: Suitable Tools for Plant Phenotyping. Sensors. https://doi.org/10.3390/s140203001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.