| Literature DB >> 28430119 |
Dionisio Andújar1, José Dorado2, José María Bengochea-Guevara3, Jesús Conesa-Muñoz4, César Fernández-Quintanilla5, Ángela Ribeiro6.
Abstract
Weather conditions can affect sensors' readings when sampling outdoors. Although sensors are usually set up covering a wide range of conditions, their operational range must be established. In recent years, depth cameras have been shown as a promising tool for plant phenotyping and other related uses. However, the use of these devices is still challenged by prevailing field conditions. Although the influence of lighting conditions on the performance of these cameras has already been established, the effect of wind is still unknown. This study establishes the associated errors when modeling some tree characteristics at different wind speeds. A system using a Kinect v2 sensor and a custom software was tested from null wind speed up to 10 m·s-1. Two tree species with contrasting architecture, poplars and plums, were used as model plants. The results showed different responses depending on tree species and wind speed. Estimations of Leaf Area (LA) and tree volume were generally more consistent at high wind speeds in plum trees. Poplars were particularly affected by wind speeds higher than 5 m·s-1. On the contrary, height measurements were more consistent for poplars than for plum trees. These results show that the use of depth cameras for tree characterization must take into consideration wind conditions in the field. In general, 5 m·s-1 (18 km·h-1) could be established as a conservative limit for good estimations.Entities:
Keywords: Kinect sensor limits; RGB-D images; depth information; wind speed; woody crops
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28430119 PMCID: PMC5426838 DOI: 10.3390/s17040914
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic design of the portable system electrically powered at 220 V by an electric car.
Figure 2RGB images (a) used to quantify the leaf area, after their transformation to binary images (b) and subsequent application of the Otsu’s thresholding method. Upper side corresponds to a poplar sample. Down side corresponds to a plum-tree sample. A 100 cm2 black square was included in each image as reference area.
Figure 3Example of poplar (figures on top) and plum (figures at the bottom) tree models created at different wind speeds, from 0 to 10 m·s−1.
Figure 4Regression analysis comparing actual height vs. model height for (a) poplar trees and (b) plum trees at wind speeds ranging from 0 to 10 m·s−1.
Figure 5Regression analysis comparing Leaf Area (LA) vs. tree volume for (a) poplar trees and (b) plum trees at wind speeds ranging from 0 to 10 m·s−1.
Figure 6Regression analysis comparing dry biomass (g) vs. tree volume for (a) poplar trees and (b) plum trees at wind speeds ranging from 0 to 10 m·s−1.