Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

A Low-Cost Photogrammetry System for 3D Plant Modeling and Phenotyping

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a low-cost, open-source photogrammetry system can reconstruct wheat plants as 3D point clouds and extract canopy traits that predict expert architecture ratings.

desk verdict A genuinely useful low-cost photogrammetry system with open data and code, but the architecture-classification results don't establish generalization to new varieties because genotypes leak across the train/test split. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16840 v1 pith:RILMGPR6 submitted 2025-04-23 cs.CV

Joe Hrzich , Michael A. Beck , Christopher P. Bidinosti , Christopher J. Henry , Kalhari Manawasinghe , Karen Tanino This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords photogrammetry3Dplantmodelingpointcloudphenotypingwheatcanopyarchitecturestructurefrommotionlow-costimagingerectophile
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper builds and tests a low-cost photogrammetry system: a turntable, four consumer cameras, and a small single-board computer photograph a plant from many angles and reconstruct it as a 3D point cloud. The aim is to make quantitative phenotyping accessible, so that traits such as plant height, radius, convex-hull volume, ground-cover area, and leaf angles can be computed from the cloud instead of being measured by hand. Using wheat, the authors show that models trained on these traits can recover an expert's erectophile-versus-planophile canopy rating, with held-out test mean absolute errors of 1.73 on day-14 plants and 1.00 on day-35 plants. The point is to demonstrate that a cheap imaging rig produces trait data carrying the same architectural signal that experts read visually.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a complete imaging-and-processing pipeline. Four cameras mounted in an arc photograph the plant while a motorized turntable rotates it step by step, and structure-from-motion software turns those overlapping images into a dense 3D point cloud. The load-bearing scaling step identifies the turntable's outer ring from a radial-distance histogram and uses its known physical diameter to convert reconstructed coordinates into real-world units; RANSAC plane fitting then aligns the turntable plane with z=0. Trait extraction operates on the cleaned cloud: an alpha-shape, a generalization of the convex hull, computes ground-cover area; slice-wise density-based clustering with a directed-graph stem path computes leaf angles; and standard computations give height, radius, and convex-hull volumes.

What would settle it

Take a set of reconstructed wheat plants and compare the scaled point-cloud height, maximum radius, convex-hull volume, and leaf angles against direct manual or calibrated measurements on the same plants. If the ring-based scale or plane alignment carries systematic error, visible as a consistent offset in height or radius, then the trait values, and therefore the regression and k-NN ratings, are not measuring what they claim. A simpler check is to rerun the architecture regressions using only unscaled point-cloud features; if predictive power survives, the metric scaling is not load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that structure-from-motion reconstruction from overlapping images of a rotating plant produces point clouds rich enough for quantitative phenotyping. After the clouds are aligned to the turntable plane and scaled using the known diameter of the turntable ring, the authors extract phenotypic traits and show that these traits, and ratios of traits, are predictive of an expert's subjective canopy-architecture rating. On held-out plants, the best multiple linear regression reaches R²=0.72 with MAE=1.73 for 14-day-old plants, and the best k-nearest-neighbor model reaches R²=0.81 with MAE=1.00 for 35-day-old plants. The authors frame this as a proof of concept that the system's features can directly support breeding-relevant questions, rather than as a predictor of manual measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the point-cloud coordinates are metrically accurate after scaling by the turntable-ring histogram and plane alignment, so that every extracted trait is a faithful proxy for the physical plant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the system is correct, a researcher can obtain, for under $3,000 CAD and with open-source software, quantitative plant traits that currently require expensive laser scanning or tedious manual measurement.
  • The held-out test results indicate that objective trait-based models can approximate expert canopy-architecture ratings closely enough to rank or triage varieties, with the day-35 k-NN model achieving MAE 1.00.
  • The trait set, including height, radius, hull volumes, ground cover, and leaf angles, becomes a reusable feature vocabulary for wheat phenotyping because each trait is computed from the same point cloud.
  • Feature ratios such as height-to-hull-volume being selected by both predictive models suggest that normalized, size-relative traits generalize better across growth stages, giving a concrete design rule for future phenotyping pipelines.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct metric-validation study, comparing point-cloud height, radius, and leaf angles against manual ruler and protractor measurements on the same plants, would cleanly separate reconstruction error from trait-algorithm error; the paper currently validates only through the expert-rating proxy.
  • The acquisition and trait pipeline should transfer to other small upright crops, since the leaf-angle and ground-cover steps are not wheat-specific, though the authors only demonstrate wheat.
  • Because expert ratings are assigned at the variety level while predictions are per-plant, part of the reported error is within-variety biological variation plus rater bias; averaging several expert ratings would likely sharpen ground truth and reduce apparent error.
  • A field-deployable or multi-station version of the rig could raise throughput beyond roughly 25 minutes per plant without changing the core reconstruction logic, a direction the authors list as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an open-source, low-cost photogrammetry system for 3D plant reconstruction and phenotyping, built from a Raspberry Pi, four Arducam cameras, a motorized turntable, and aluminum framing. The software pipeline uses COLMAP for structure-from-motion reconstruction, followed by point-cloud alignment, turntable-ring-based scaling, color filtering, manual pot removal, and a semi-automated graph-based segmentation for multi-seedling pots. From the reconstructed point clouds, the authors extract traits including plant height, radius, convex-hull volumes, ground-cover projection area, and leaf angles. The main application claim is that these traits can predict expert-assigned erectophile versus planophile canopy-architecture ratings; they report multiple linear regression and k-NN results on held-out plants for day-14 and day-35 wheat datasets, with test MAE values of 1.73 (R2=0.72) and 1.00 (R2=0.81), respectively.

Significance. If the claims are supported, the system would be a useful, affordable, and reproducible tool for plant phenotyping: the hardware is inexpensive, the code and data are publicly released, and the trait extraction pipeline addresses realistic problems such as multi-plant segmentation and leaf-angle estimation. However, the central validation of the architecture-classification claim is weakened by a genotype-level label-leakage issue: each of the six varieties has a single expert rating, and the held-out test plants come from the same six varieties used in training. This means the reported test accuracies may reflect memorization of variety-level labels rather than generalization to unseen canopy architectures. The absence of direct metric validation against manual measurements or calibrated objects is a further concern, though less damaging because several features are ratios that are partially scale-invariant. Overall the contribution is technically substantial and reproducible, but the evidence for the headline phenotyping claim is currently inconclusive.

major comments (3)
  1. [VI-A; Tables VII and VIII] The evaluation protocol does not support the claim that the extracted traits objectively classify erectophile versus planophile architectures for new varieties. The expert assigned a single rating to all plants of each variety (Table IV), and the train/test split places 8 plants per variety in training and 2 per variety in the test set. Every test plant therefore belongs to a genotype whose rating appears in training. Under this protocol, k-NN with k=2 can succeed simply by retrieving same-genotype neighbors, and any genotype-correlated feature set (height, volume, hull, ground cover) can memorize the six labels. The effective number of independent test units is six, not twelve. Please report a genotype-level evaluation, such as leave-one-genotype-out predictions, or explicitly restrict the claim to ranking plants within already-known varieties.
  2. [IV-D; V-C] The metric accuracy of the reconstructed point clouds is asserted rather than demonstrated. Scaling depends on the turntable-ring histogram (Algorithm 2) and plane segmentation (Algorithm 1), but no comparison is made between HMax, RMax, convex-hull volumes, or ground-cover area and manual measurements or calibrated reference objects. Since Table VII includes absolute features such as HMax, V100, and G in the regression, a reconstruction-dependent scale or completeness error would propagate directly into the reported coefficients and accuracies. The authors should add a validation experiment with a known-size calibration object or manual measurements on at least a subset of plants.
  3. [V-C6; VI] The leaf-angle extraction algorithm is described at length, yet leaf angles do not appear among the features selected for either predictive model in Tables VII and VIII, and no direct comparison between extracted leaf angles and the architecture rating is reported. Because the erectophile/planophile distinction is fundamentally about leaf orientation, the paper should either include leaf-angle features in the predictive analysis or explicitly explain why they were omitted at the 14-day stage where the method is stated to be valid.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'utilizing', 'manullay', 'steam' (for stem), 'futher', 'the the turntable', 'theses measurements', and 'out explicit segmentation'.
  2. [Table III] The hardware specifications in Table III appear inconsistent with the actual hardware: the NVIDIA RTX 3090 has compute capability 8.6 and memory bandwidth of roughly 936 GB/s, and the Tesla V100 has compute capability 7.0, not 5.0/6.0 as listed. Please verify and correct these entries.
  3. [Table V] The camera resolution is listed as 4084 x 3051 in Table V but as 4056 x 3040 in Section III and Table I; please reconcile the numbers.
  4. [Algorithm 3] Algorithm 3 uses generic lower_threshold and upper_threshold arguments, while the text describes specific LAB thresholds (b-channel >= 80 and a-channel < 140). Please clarify how the pseudocode maps to the LAB thresholds and ensure the released code matches the description.
  5. [VI-A] The p-values reported in Table VII come from coefficients of a stepwise forward/backward selection procedure on the training set; these are not valid significance tests on the held-out data. Please label them as selection diagnostics or provide confidence intervals from the final model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: trait-based supervised models are trained and tested on held-out plants; the shared-genotype split is a validation concern, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a supervised learning pipeline: phenotypic traits computed from photogrammetric point clouds are used to predict an expert-assigned UPOV canopy-architecture rating. The target labels were assigned per genotype before point-cloud creation (Section VI), and the features are computed independently from the point clouds. The multiple linear regression and k-NN models are fit on a 48-plant training split and evaluated on a 12-plant held-out test split, with feature selection performed on training data only (Section VI-A and VI-B). Nothing in the paper defines a trait in terms of the rating or fits a parameter to the test labels and then reports it as a prediction; the held-out test is genuinely held out at the plant level. The main limitation is that the expert rating is constant per variety while the split is per plant, so test plants share genotype labels with training plants; this is a generalization-design weakness, not a circularity. The system's reconstruction and processing components are supported by external tools (COLMAP, Open3D, DBSCAN, alpha-shapes) and the paper does not rely on load-bearing self-citations. No circular reduction of the claimed results to their inputs is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests mainly on the validity of COLMAP and of the calibration and segmentation assumptions, plus the subjective expert rating used as ground truth. No new physical entities are introduced; the novel algorithmic components are parameterized graph methods.

free parameters (7)
  • LAB mask thresholds (b-channel >= 80, a-channel < 140) = b >= 80, a < 140
    Used to create binary masks separating plant from blue backdrop (Section IV-B); thresholds were optimized for stable indoor lighting and may need adjustment.
  • Alpha-shape parameter alpha for ground cover area = 100
    Selected as reasonable for alpha-shape ground cover projection (Section V-C4); affects the G feature used in day-35 regression.
  • Number of z-slices n for leaf-angle extraction = 80
    Slices the plant into n horizontal slices for DBSCAN clustering and centroid graph (Section V-C5).
  • DAG edge-cost weights alpha, beta, gamma, delta = Not specified in text; available on GitHub
    Tune cost = -(alpha*d_h + beta*theta_a + gamma*p_v + delta*b) for stem path extraction (Section V-C5 step 7). No values are reported in the paper.
  • RANSAC distance threshold and max iterations = Not specified in text
    Used in Algorithm 1 to segment the turntable plane for alignment; values affect scale and orientation of every point cloud.
  • DBSCAN parameters (eps, min_samples) = Not specified in text
    Used for clustering leaf and stem slices in leaf-angle extraction (Section V-C5 step 2).
  • Model hyperparameters k and feature-selection threshold = k=5 (day 14), k=2 (day 35); p<0.05 in forward/backward feature selection
    Chosen via 4-fold cross-validation on training sets (Section VI); these are fitting choices rather than physical parameters.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption COLMAP structure-from-motion reconstructs metric geometry from the captured images.
    The entire trait pipeline relies on COLMAP producing accurate 3D points (Section IV-C).
  • domain assumption The turntable ring segmentation identifies a circle whose diameter is known exactly, giving the correct point-cloud scale.
    Scaling uses the most common radial distance of low-z points as the turntable ring (Section IV-D, Algorithm 2).
  • domain assumption RANSAC plane fit returns the turntable plane and normal, so aligning to z=0 is valid.
    Plane segmentation and alignment are prerequisites for all z-based measurements (Section IV-D).
  • domain assumption The expert's single UPOV rating per genotype is a reliable ground truth for erectophile versus planophile architecture.
    Used as the target in all regression and kNN models (Section VI); ratings were made before point clouds were created, but they are subjective and not repeated.
  • ad hoc to paper Plants at day 14 grow upward with no strongly arcing leaves, so the leaf-angle graph and regression approach is valid.
    The paper explicitly states the method is robust only for young upward-growing plants (Section V-C5).
  • domain assumption Color thresholding removes blue background artifacts without removing plant points.
    Assumed in point-cloud cleaning (Section IV-D, Algorithm 3).
  • domain assumption Voxel downsampling, normal estimation, and statistical outlier removal preserve trait-relevant geometry.
    The segmentation and trait pipeline is applied to the downsampled cloud before labels are mapped back (Section V-B).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Low-Cost Photogrammetry System for 3D Plant Modeling and Phenotyping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RILMGPR6

@misc{pith2026250416840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Low-Cost Photogrammetry System for 3D Plant Modeling and Phenotyping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RILMGPR6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16840}
}
read the original abstract

We present an open-source, low-cost photogrammetry system for 3D plant modeling and phenotyping. The system uses a structure-from-motion approach to reconstruct 3D representations of the plants via point clouds. Using wheat as an example, we demonstrate how various phenotypic traits can be computed easily from the point clouds. These include standard measurements such as plant height and radius, as well as features that would be more cumbersome to measure by hand, such as leaf angles and convex hull. We further demonstrate the utility of the system through the investigation of specific metrics that may yield objective classifications of erectophile versus planophile wheat canopy architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16840 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left) A view of turntable with an example wheat plant and blue backdrop. In the foreground three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the modified wiring required to drive the the turntable stepper motor via the RPi and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Screenshot of the system’s graphical user interface, showing the settings the user can adjust, including [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Flowchart of individual steps involved in collecting images with the photogrammetry system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Images captured from four different perspectives by cameras A through D (top row) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Flowchart of point cloud pre-processing steps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Left) Point cloud before alignment, the origin of the coordinate system lies clearly outside the object [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left) Segmented outer ring of the turntable used for scaling of the point cloud to real-world units. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Left) Unprocessed point cloud showing blue artifacts around the 3D model of the object. (Right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Examples of fully processed point clouds (bottom) and sample photographs (top) used in their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example of the segmentation pipeline on a point cloud of Day 14 Chara. (Left) It can be seen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Plots of one of Brandon wheat genotype seedling on day 14. (Left) The vertical height is defined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Visualization of the 3D point cloud for Brandon day 35 as the smallest convex volume encompassing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The canopy volume of the top 60% of voxels for an example of the Kukri (Left, neutral canopy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Visualization of the plant voxels projected onto the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Two consecutive slices of a wheat plant showing how DBSCAN recognizes the splitting of a leaf off [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Visualization of the steps performed for leaf angle calculations. (Left) The 3D-embedded graph of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Casto, Haley Schuhl, Jose C

    Anna L. Casto, Haley Schuhl, Jose C. Tovar, Qi Wang, Rebecca S. Bart, Noah Fahlgren, and Malia A. Gehan. Picturing the future of food.The Plant Phenome Journal , 4(1):e20014, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Unlocking plant secrets: A systematic review of 3d imaging in plant phenotyping techniques.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , 222:109033, 2024

    Muhammad Salman Akhtar, Zuhair Zafar, Raheel Nawaz, and Muhammad Moazam Fraz. Unlocking plant secrets: A systematic review of 3d imaging in plant phenotyping techniques.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , 222:109033, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    De Vylder, F

    J. De Vylder, F. Vandenbussche, Y. Hu, W. Philips, and D. Van Der Straeten. Rosette tracker: An open source image analysis tool for automatic quantification of genotype effects.Plant Physiology, 160(3):1149–1159, 08 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Salter, A

    W. Salter, A. Shrestha, and M. Barbour. Open source 3d phenotyping of chickpea plant architecture across plant development. Plant Methods, 17, 09 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    K. E. Keightley and G. W. Bawden. 3d volumetric modeling of grapevine biomass using tripod lidar.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 74(2):305–312, 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Paulus, J

    S. Paulus, J. Dupuis, A.K. Mahlein, et al. Surface feature based classification of plant organs from 3d laserscanned point clouds for plant phenotyping.BMC Bioinformatics, 14:238, 2013. 27

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Nagasubramanian, S

    K. Nagasubramanian, S. Jones, A.K. Singh, et al. Plant disease identification using explainable 3d deep learning on hyperspectral images. Plant Methods, 15:98, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Paulus, J

    S. Paulus, J. Dupuis, S. Riedel, and H. Kuhlmann. Automated analysis of barley organs using 3d laser scanning: An approach for high throughput phenotyping.Sensors, 14(7):12670–12686, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Khanna, L

    R. Khanna, L. Schmid, A. Walter, and J. Nieto. A spatio temporal spectral framework for plant stress phenotyping.Plant Methods, 15(1):13, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    S. Paulus. Measuring crops in 3d: using geometry for plant phenotyping.Plant Methods, 15:103, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Hosoi and K

    F. Hosoi and K. Omasa. Estimating vertical plant area density profile and growth parameters of a wheat canopy at different growth stages using three-dimensional portable lidar imaging.ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , 64(2):151–158, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    Gebbers, D

    R. Gebbers, D. Ehlert, and R. Adamek. Rapid mapping of the leaf area index in agricultural crops.Agronomy Journal, 103:1532–1541, 09 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    Nguyen, D

    T. Nguyen, D. Slaughter, N. Max, J. Maloof, and N. Sinha. Structured light-based 3d reconstruction system for plants. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) , 15:18587–612, 08 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    Paulus, H

    S. Paulus, H. Schumann, H. Kuhlmann, and J. Léon. High-precision laser scanning system for capturing 3d plant architecture and analysing growth of cereal plants.Biosystems Engineering, 121:1–11, 05 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    J. A. Gibbs, M. P. Pound, A. P. French, D. M. Wells, E. H. Murchie, and T. Pridmore. Approaches to three-dimensional reconstruction of plant shoot topology and geometry.Functional Plant Biology, 44(1):62–75, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    X. Lu, E. Ono, S. lu, Y. Zhang, P. Teng, M. Aono, Y. Shimizu, F. Hosoi, and K. Omasa. Reconstruction method and optimum range of camera-shooting angle for 3d plant modeling using a multi-camera photography system.Plant Methods, 16, 08 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Breitzman, Maria G

    Yin Bao, Lie Tang, Matthew W. Breitzman, Maria G. Salas Fernandez, and Patrick S. Schnable. Field-based robotic phenotyping of sorghum plant architecture using stereo vision.Journal of Field Robotics , 36(2):397–415, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Phenostereo: a high-throughput stereo vision system for field-based plant phenotyping-with an application in sorghum stem diameter estimation

    Lirong Xiang, Lie Tang, Jingyao Gai, and Le Wang. Phenostereo: a high-throughput stereo vision system for field-based plant phenotyping-with an application in sorghum stem diameter estimation. 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Field phenotyping of grapevine growth using dense stereo reconstruction

    Maria Klodt, Katja Herzog, Reinhard Töpfer, and Daniel Cremers. Field phenotyping of grapevine growth using dense stereo reconstruction. 16(1):143

  12. [20]

    Paproki, X

    A. Paproki, X. Sirault, S. Berry, et al. A novel mesh processing based technique for 3d plant analysis.BMC Plant Biology, 12(63), 2012

    2012

  13. [21]

    Moeckel, S

    T. Moeckel, S. Dayananda, R. R. Nidamanuri, S. Nautiyal, N. Hanumaiah, A. Buerkert, and M. Wachendorf. Estimation of vegetable crop parameter by multi-temporal uav-borne images.Remote Sensing, 10(5), 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Y. Shi, J. A. Thomasson, S. C. Murray, N. A. Pugh, W. L. Rooney, S. Shafian, N. Rajan, G. Rouze, C. L. S. Morgan, H. L. Neely, and et al. Unmanned aerial vehicles for high-throughput phenotyping and agronomic research.PLOS ONE, 11(7):1–26, 07 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    J. He, R. Harrison, and B. Li. A novel 3d imaging system for strawberry phenotyping.Plant Methods, 13, 11 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    van der Heijden, Y

    G. van der Heijden, Y. Song, G. Horgan, G. Polder, J. Dieleman, M. Brink, A. Palloix, F. Eeuwijk, and C. Glasbey. Spicy: towards automated phenotyping of large pepper plants in the greenhouse.Functional Plant Biology, 39, 11 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Biskup, H

    B. Biskup, H. Scharr, U. Schurr, and U. Rascher. A stereo imaging system for measuring structural parameters of plant canopies. Plant, Cell & Environment , 30(10):1299–1308, 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    Shafiekhani, S

    A. Shafiekhani, S. Kadam, F. B. Fritschi, and G. N. DeSouza. Vinobot and vinoculer: Two robotic platforms for high- throughput field phenotyping.Sensors, 17(1), 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Milella, R

    A. Milella, R. Marani, A. Petitti, and G. Reina. In-field high throughput grapevine phenotyping with a consumer-grade depth camera. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , 156:293–306, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Three-dimensionalmodeling of weed plants using low-cost photogrammetry.Sensors, 18(4), 2018

    DionisioAndújar,MikelCalle,CésarFernández-Quintanilla,ÁngelaRibeiro,andJoséDorado. Three-dimensionalmodeling of weed plants using low-cost photogrammetry.Sensors, 18(4), 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Thanh-Nghi Doan and Chuong V. Nguyen. A low-cost digital 3D insect scanner. 11(3):337–355

  22. [30]

    scAnt—an open-source platform for the creation of 3D models of arthropods (and other small objects)

    Fabian Plum and David Labonte. scAnt—an open-source platform for the creation of 3D models of arthropods (and other small objects). 9:e11155. 28

  23. [31]

    Raspberry pi 4 model b 4gb

    Raspberry Pi Foundation. Raspberry pi 4 model b 4gb. https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/raspberry-pi-4-model-b/,

  24. [32]

    Getting Started with 64MP-AF Quad Camera Kit, 2022

    Arducam Technology Co., Limited. Getting Started with 64MP-AF Quad Camera Kit, 2022. [Online; accessed 2023-03-21]

    2022

  25. [33]

    Photocapture 360m - motorized turntable

    Ortery Technologies, Inc. Photocapture 360m - motorized turntable. https://www.ortery.com/ photocapture-360-product-photography-turntables/, 2023. [Online; accessed 2023-02-26]

    2023

  26. [34]

    Dc and stepper motor hat for raspberry pi

    Adafruit Industries. Dc and stepper motor hat for raspberry pi. https://www.adafruit.com/product/2348, 2023. [Online; accessed 2024-02-24

    2023

  27. [35]

    Joe Hrzich. Photopi. https://github.com/joehrz/PhotoPi, 2024. [Online; accessed 2024-10-5]

    2024

  28. [36]

    Paramiko

    Jeff Forcier. Paramiko. https://www.paramiko.org/, 2024. [Online; accessed 2024-08-14]

    2024

  29. [37]

    J. L. Schönberger and J. Frahm. Structure-from-motion revisited. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Open3D: A modern library for 3D data processing.arXiv:1801.09847, 2018

    Qian-Yi Zhou, Jaesik Park, and Vladlen Koltun. Open3D: A modern library for 3D data processing.arXiv:1801.09847, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Edelsbrunner, D

    H. Edelsbrunner, D. Kirkpatrick, and R. Seidel. On the shape of a set of points in the plane.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 29(4):551–559, 1983

    1983

  32. [40]

    A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise

    Martin Ester, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Jörg Sander, Xiaowei Xu, et al. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. Inkdd, volume 96, pages 226–231, 1996

    1996

  33. [41]

    Richards, Colin R

    Richard A. Richards, Colin R. Cavanagh, and Penny Riffkin. Selection for erect canopy architecture can increase yield and biomass of spring wheat.Field Crops Research, 244:107649, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Springer Nature, 2023

    Gareth James, Daniela Witten, Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jonathan Taylor.An introduction to statistical learning: With applications in python . Springer Nature, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Cover and P

    T. Cover and P. Hart. Nearest neighbor pattern classification.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 13(1):21–27, 1967

    1967

  36. [2023]

    [Online; accessed 2023-02-26]

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.