However, the same variables responsible for the horizontal distortion could also distort the surface vertically. You could do the same thing digitally, with more sample plots, so there is no reason to rectify the whole image to remove the random horizontal distortion. He will harvest all plants in two 1m2 plots in each of the 52 plots. I think Dorn was planning on measuring biomass sometime during the next week. It can also reveal details of geography that might be overlooked on the ground or from much higher altitudes and could have application in lots of different endeavors. So an important value of this tool is as an effective way to direct an audience's attention to some feature of a 3D space. Most people, even those who do not relate to maps, get the picture very fast when they can fly around a landscape. Topography, geographic features, vegetative structure, and the built environment can all be displayed in "3D" either on the web or during a presentation. Regardless of whether quantitative results come from this, it is a great way to display the geometry of small landscapes.
Deriving such quantitative results requires calibration, so maybe poles of known height could have been placed throughout the field before it was photographed (although that might not really work). It might instead be possible to use many random measurements of height of the plant canopy in each plot and relate that to plant growth.
I am not sure that will be very easy to do because the model does not have horizontal dimensional control - note that the rectangular plots are longer at one end of the study area than the other (they should all be the same size). This could then be related to the biomass of the plants there which could help reveal which treatments had an effect. I think the original idea with this model was that it could be used to calculate the volume of vegetation (above some ground plane) of each of the 52 study plots.
0 kommentar(er)
