↓ Skip to main content

Considerations for Achieving Cross-Platform Point Cloud Data Fusion across Different Dryland Ecosystem Structural States

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Considerations for Achieving Cross-Platform Point Cloud Data Fusion across Different Dryland Ecosystem Structural States
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2017.02144
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tyson L. Swetnam, Jeffrey K. Gillan, Temuulen T. Sankey, Mitchel P. McClaran, Mary H. Nichols, Philip Heilman, Jason McVay

Abstract

Remotely sensing recent growth, herbivory, or disturbance of herbaceous and woody vegetation in dryland ecosystems requires high spatial resolution and multi-temporal depth. Three dimensional (3D) remote sensing technologies like lidar, and techniques like structure from motion (SfM) photogrammetry, each have strengths and weaknesses at detecting vegetation volume and extent, given the instrument's ground sample distance and ease of acquisition. Yet, a combination of platforms and techniques might provide solutions that overcome the weakness of a single platform. To explore the potential for combining platforms, we compared detection bias amongst two 3D remote sensing techniques (lidar and SfM) using three different platforms [ground-based, small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS), and manned aircraft]. We found aerial lidar to be more accurate for characterizing the bare earth (ground) in dense herbaceous vegetation than either terrestrial lidar or aerial SfM photogrammetry. Conversely, the manned aerial lidar did not detect grass and fine woody vegetation while the terrestrial lidar and high resolution near-distance (ground and sUAS) SfM photogrammetry detected these and were accurate. UAS SfM photogrammetry at lower spatial resolution under-estimated maximum heights in grass and shrubs. UAS and handheld SfM photogrammetry in near-distance high resolution collections had similar accuracy to terrestrial lidar for vegetation, but difficulty at measuring bare earth elevation beneath dense herbaceous cover. Combining point cloud data and derivatives (i.e., meshes and rasters) from two or more platforms allowed for more accurate measurement of herbaceous and woody vegetation (height and canopy cover) than any single technique alone. Availability and costs of manned aircraft lidar collection preclude high frequency repeatability but this is less limiting for terrestrial lidar, sUAS and handheld SfM. The post-processing of SfM photogrammetry data became the limiting factor at larger spatial scale and temporal repetition. Despite the utility of sUAS and handheld SfM for monitoring vegetation phenology and structure, their spatial extents are small relative to manned aircraft.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 21%
Student > Master 12 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Researcher 6 10%
Other 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 13 21%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 8 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 13%
Engineering 6 10%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 14 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#8,186,227
of 26,254,370 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#4,877
of 25,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,540
of 456,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#121
of 440 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,254,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,056 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 456,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 440 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.