This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
References are in acceptable Wiki inline parenthetical style (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). Therefore I have reverted to previous version. Chamberlinda (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the number and presentation of the references appears to be that the entire page was plagiarized from: Characterizing plant canopies with hemispherical photographs. 1990. Remote Sensing Reviews:5(1), 13-29. That, of course, is the one reference which doesn't appear on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conifere (talk • contribs) 19:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the 1990 review is the first source cited, that the review was largely derived from a 1989 publication that is in the public domain, and that there is also significant content from more recent sources published after the 1990. Pmrich (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]