Examination of the Effects of Curvature in Geometrical Space on Accuracy of Scaling Derived Projections of Plant Biomass Units: Applications to the Assessment of Average Leaf Biomass in Eelgrass Shoots

<p>Spread about the polynomial mean response function <span class="nowrap"><svg height="12.4698pt" id="M172" style="vertical-align:-3.18147pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -9.28833 46.8824 12.4698" width="46.8824pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M593 650H142L136 622C219 616 224 611 209 531L130 120C114 39 108 34 23 28L17 0H501C518 32 557 130 568 158L540 169C519 132 495 93 469 70C439 43 409 35 332 35C272 35 241 37 225 50C211 61 211 89 222 149L253 320H350C441 320 443 312 441 239H471L510 434H481C455 366 448 358 360 358H260L303 572C311 613 312 615 348 615H431C509 615 522 603 532 581C544 555 546 531 545 491L574 493C583 555 592 631 593 650Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.0091,0,0,-0.0091,7.943,3.132)"><path d="M622 479C622 589 545 650 400 650H146L140 618C229 609 230 602 215 527L135 132C117 43 112 41 27 32L18 0H305L313 32C213 40 205 44 222 132L251 284L324 262H365C484 269 622 333 622 479ZM528 477C528 356 420 305 344 305C300 305 276 314 259 321L303 554C311 597 313 600 331 606C345 611 361 614 379 614C463 614 528 580 528 477Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,14.122,0)"><path d="M300 -147C201 -63 143 98 143 270S200 602 300 686L282 710C136 610 70 450 70 271V270C70 89 136 -72 282 -170L300 -147Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,18.62,0)"><path d="M219 86C216 168 211 250 206 337C201 410 189 448 163 448C131 448 79 396 43 344L60 322C91 359 110 375 118 375S132 358 136 298C141 238 152 81 155 -12H182C242 62 331 177 390 258C435 321 451 360 451 391C450 424 432 448 408 448C390 448 372 435 366 419C362 410 362 401 366 394C373 383 376 367 376 350C376 283 262 138 221 86H219Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.116,0)"><path d="M162 -163V703H101V-163H162Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,35.166,0)"><path d="M515 96L502 119C471 88 431 62 423 62C416 62 411 70 417 101C440 223 469 341 497 448H486L412 422L380 277C330 188 210 57 152 57C137 57 126 69 139 124L195 366C210 431 205 448 182 448C155 448 89 413 23 350L36 326C73 354 103 376 112 376C118 376 118 365 113 340L61 118C54 90 52 68 52 51C52 0 75 -12 98 -12S151 -3 181 17C242 58 305 119 362 193H364L345 104C323 3 339 -12 359 -12C390 -12 464 35 515 96Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,42.161,0)"><path d="M275 270C275 450 212 609 64 710L45 686C145 604 203 442 203 270S147 -63 45 -147L64 -170C213 -68 275 89 275 270Z"></path></g></svg>.</span> Compared with the plot in Figure <a href="../fig1/">1</a>, we can be aware that, as opposite to the TAMA protocol, the polynomial scheme offers a consistent account of curvature.</p>

BioMed Research International

fig3

Figure 3

Figure 3: Examination of the Effects of Curvature in Geometrical Space on Accuracy of Scaling Derived Projections of Plant Biomass Units: Applications to the Assessment of Average Leaf Biomass in Eelgrass Shoots 

Figure 3 | Examination of the Effects of Curvature in Geometrical Space on Accuracy of Scaling Derived Projections of Plant Biomass Units: Applications to the Assessment of Average Leaf Biomass in Eelgrass Shoots 