Physiological phenotyping of plants for crop improvement

Trends in Plant Science

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 139-144

  Ghanem, Michel Edmond ^a   Marrou, Hélène ^b,c   Sinclair, Thomas R ^c  

^a INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN THE DRY AREAS ICARDA   (Syrian Arab Republic)

^b Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement   (France)

^c NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Crop breeding; High throughput phenotyping platform; Physiological phenotyping; Trait screening

Indexed keywords

BREEDING; CROP; GENETICS; PHENOTYPE; PROCEDURES;

BREEDING; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; PHENOTYPE;

EID: 84924031799     PISSN: 13601385     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2014.11.006     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Diamond J. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies 1997, Norton & Company.
2. Sinclair T.R., Sinclair C.J. Bread, Beer and the Seeds of Change: Agriculture's Imprint on History 2010, CAB International.
3. Johannsen W.L. Elemente der Exakten Erblichkeitslehre [The Elements of an Exact Theory of Heredity] 1909, Jena Gustave Fischer.
4. Mahner M., Kary M. What exactly are genomes, genotypes and phenotypes? And what about phenomes?. J. Theor. Biol. 1997, 186:55-63.
5. Violle C., et al. Let the concept of trait be functional!. Oikos 2007, 116:882-892.
6. Fiorani F., Schurr U. Future scenarios for plant phenotyping. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2013, 64:267-291.
7. Tardieu F., Tuberosa R. Dissection and modelling of abiotic stress tolerance in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2010, 13:206-212.
8. Munns R., et al. New phenotyping methods for screening wheat and barley for beneficial responses to water deficit. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61:3499-3507.
9. Sinclair T.R., et al. Crop transformation and the challenge to increase yield potential. Trends Plant Sci. 2004, 9:70-75.
10. Sinclair T.R. Challenges in breeding for yield increase for drought. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16:289-293.
11. Martre P., et al. Model-assisted phenotyping and ideotype design in crop physiology. Crop Physiology: Applications for Genetic Improvement and Agronomy 2014, 349-373. Elsevier. V.O. Sadras, D. Calderini (Eds.).
12. Wery J. Differential effects of soil water deficit on the basic plant functions and their significance to analyse crop responses to water deficit in indeterminate plants. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2005, 56:1201-1209.
13. Annicchiarico P. Defining adaptation strategies and yield stability targets in breeding programmes. Quantitative Genetics, Genomics, and Plant Breeding 2002, 365-383. CABI. M.S. Kang (Ed.).
14. Zamir D. Where have all the crop phenotypes gone?. PLoS Biol. 2013, 11:e1001595. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001595.
15. Rebetzke G.J., et al. A multisite managed environment facility for targeted trait and germplasm phenotyping. Funct. Plant Biol. 2013, 40:1-13.
16. Campos H., et al. Improving drought tolerance in maize: a view from industry. Field Crops Res. 2004, 90:19-34.
17. Sinclair T.R., Purcell L.C. Is a physiological perspective relevant in a 'genocentric' age?. J. Exp. Bot. 2005, 56:2777-2782.
18. Passioura J.B. Phenotyping for drought tolerance in grain crops: when is it useful to breeders?. Funct. Plant Biol. 2012, 39:851-859.
19. Furbank R.T., Tester M. Phenomics - technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16:635-644.
20. Tuberosa R. Phenotyping for drought tolerance of crops in the genomics era. Front. Physiol. 2012, 3. 10.3389/fphys.2012.00347.
21. Jordan W.R., et al. Strategies for crop improvement for drought-prone regions. Agric. Water Manag. 1983, 7:281-299.
22. Ludlow M.M., Muchow R.C. A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments. Adv. Agron. 1990, 43:107-153.
23. Purcell L.C., King C.A. Drought and nitrogen source effects on nitrogen nutrition, seed growth, and yield in soybean. J. Plant Nutr. 1996, 19:969-993.
24. Ray J.D., et al. Influence of large amounts of nitrogen on nonirrigated and irrigated soybean. Crop Sci. 2006, 46:52-60.
25. Soltani A., Sinclair T.R. Modeling Physiology of Crop Development, Growth and Yield 2012, CABI.
26. Cooper M., et al. Breeding drought-tolerant maize hybrids for the US corn-belt: discovery to product. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65:6191-6204.
27. Devi J.M., et al. Evaluation of elite southern maturity soybean breeding lines for drought-tolerant traits. Agron. J. 2014, 106:1947-1954.
28. Guo M., et al. Maize ARGOS1 (ZAR1) transgenic alleles increase hybrid maize yield. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65:249-260.
29. Salekdeh G.H., et al. Conceptual framework for drought phenotyping during molecular breeding. Trends Plant Sci. 2009, 14:488-496.
30. Bernardo R. Molecular markers and selection for complex traits in plants: learning from the last 20 years. Crop Sci. 2008, 48:1649-1664.
31. 2 fixation tolerance to water deficits. Crop Sci. 2000, 40:1803-1809.
32. 2 fixation. Field Crops Res. 2007, 101:68-71.
33. Chen Y., et al. Differential responses of the cultivated and wild species of soybean to dehydration stress. Crop Sci. 2006, 46:2041-2046.
34. Bonneau J., et al. Multi-environment analysis and improved mapping of a yield-related QTL on chromosome 3B of wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2013, 126:747-761.
35. Yu K., et al. Population substructure and control selection in genome-wide association studies. PLoS ONE 2008, 3:e2551. 10.1371/journal.pone.0002551.
36. Poland J.A., Nelson R.J. In the eye of the beholder: the effect of rater variability and different rating scales on QTL mapping. Phytopathology 2011, 101:290-298.
37. Cobb J.N., et al. Next-generation phenotyping: requirements and strategies for enhancing our understanding of genotype-phenotype relationships and its relevance to crop improvement. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2013, 126:867-887.
38. Heffner E.L., et al. Plant breeding with genomic selection: gain per unit time and cost. Crop Sci. 2010, 50:1681-1691.
39. Cabrera-Bosquet L., et al. High-throughput phenotyping and genomic selection: the frontiers of crop breeding converge. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2012, 54:312-320.
40. Heslot N., et al. Genomic selection in plant breeding: a comparison of models. Crop Sci. 2012, 52:146-160.
41. Passioura J.B. Scaling up: the essence of effective agricultural research. Funct. Plant Biol. 2010, 37:585-591.
42. Claeys H., et al. What is stress? Dose-response effects in commonly used in vitro stress assays. Plant Physiol. 2014, 165:519-527.
43. Reuzeau C., et al. TraitMill: a discovery engine for identifying yield-enhancement genes in cereals. Fenzi Zhiwu Yuzhong 2005, 3:753-759.
44. Rajendran K., et al. Quantifying the three main components of salinity tolerance in cereals. Plant. Cell Environ. 2009, 32:237-249.
45. Hartmann A., et al. HTPheno: an image analysis pipeline for high-throughput plant phenotyping. BMC Bioinformatics 2011, 12:148. 10.1186/1471-2105-12-148.
46. Granier C., et al. PHENOPSIS, an automated platform for reproducible phenotyping of plant responses to soil water deficit in Arabidopsis thaliana permitted the identification of an accession with low sensitivity to soil water deficit. New Phytol. 2006, 169:623-635.
47. Schurr U., Tardieu F. White Paper on Plant Phenotyping, European Plant Science Organisation (EPSO) Workshop 2009, EPSO, Jülich, November 2009.
48. Leinonen I., et al. Estimating stomatal conductance with thermal imagery. Plant Cell Environ. 2006, 29:1508-1518.
49. Guilioni L., et al. On the relationships between stomatal resistance and leaf temperatures in thermography. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2008, 148:1908-1912.
50. Sinclair T.R. Is transpiration efficiency a viable plant trait in breeding for crop improvement?. Funct. Plant Biol. 2012, 39:359-365.
51. Vadez V., et al. Transpiration efficiency: new insights into an old story. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65:6141-6153.
52. Sinclair T.R., Seligman S. Criteria for publishing papers on crop modeling. Field Crops Res. 2000, 68:165-172.
53. Sinclair T., Muchow R.C. System analysis of plant traits to increase grain yield on limited water supplies. Agron. J. 2001, 92:263-270.
54. Sinclair T.R., et al. Soybean production potential in Africa. Glob. Food Secur. 2014, 3:31-40.
55. Sinclair T.R., et al. Assessment across the United States of the benefits of altered soybean drought traits. Agron. J. 2010, 102:475-482.
56. White J.W., et al. Field-based phenomics for plant genetics research. Field Crop. Res. 2012, 133:101-112.
57. Araus J.L., Cairns J.E. Field high-throughput phenotyping: the new crop breeding frontier. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19:52-61.
58. Montes J.M., et al. Novel throughput phenotyping platforms in plant genetic studies. Trends Plant Sci. 2007, 12:433-436.
59. Babar M.A., et al. Spectral reflectance to estimate genetic variation for in-season biomass, leaf chlorophyll, and canopy temperature in wheat. Crop Sci. 2006, 46:1046-1057.
60. Seelig H-D., et al. Relations of remote sensing leaf water indices to leaf water thickness in cowpea, bean, and sugarbeet plants. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112:445-455.
61. Jones H.G., et al. Thermal infrared imaging of crop canopies for the remote diagnosis and quantification of plant responses to water stress in the field. Funct. Plant Biol. 2009, 36:978-989.
62. Blum A., et al. Infrared thermal sensing of plant canopies as a screening technique for dehydration avoidance in wheat. Field Crop. Res. 1982, 5:137-146.
63. Mistele B., Schmidhalter U. Estimating the nitrogen nutrition index using spectral canopy reflectance measurements. Eur. J. Agron. 2008, 29:184-190.
64. Sims D.A., Gamon J.A. Relationships between leaf pigment content and spectral reflectance across a wide range of species, leaf structures and developmental stages. Remote Sens. Environ. 2002, 81:337-354.
65. Chaerle L., et al. Monitoring and screening plant populations with combined thermal and chlorophyll fluorescence imaging. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58:773-784.
66. Van Leeuwen W.J.D., et al. Multi-sensor NDVI data continuity: uncertainties and implications for vegetation monitoring applications. Remote Sens. Environ. 2006, 100:67-81.
67. Pereyra-Irujo G.A., et al. GlyPh: a low-cost platform for phenotyping plant growth and water use. Funct. Plant Biol. 2012, 39:905-913.
68. Tackenberg O. A new method for non-destructive measurement of biomass, growth rates, vertical biomass distribution and dry matter content based on digital image analysis. Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 2007, 99:777-783.
69. Wiese A., et al. Spatio-temporal leaf growth patterns of Arabidopsis thaliana and evidence for sugar control of the diel leaf growth cycle. New Phytol. 2007, 174:752-761.
70. Welcker C., et al. Are source and sink strengths genetically linked in maize plants subjected to water deficit? A QTL study of the responses of leaf growth and of Anthesis-Silking Interval to water deficit. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58:339-349.
71. Cookson S.J., et al. Day length affects the dynamics of leaf expansion and cellular development in Arabidopsis thaliana partially through floral transition timing. Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 2007, 99:703-711.
72. Parent B., et al. Rice leaf growth and water potential are resilient to evaporative demand and soil water deficit once the effects of root system are neutralized. Plant. Cell Environ. 2010, 33:1256-1267.
73. Berger B., et al. High-throughput shoot imaging to study drought responses. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61:3519-3528.
74. Biddington N.L. The effects of mechanically-induced stress in plants? A review. Plant Growth Regul. 1986, 4:103-123.
75. Chehab E.W., et al. Thigmomorphogenesis: a complex plant response to mechano-stimulation. J. Exp. Bot. 2009, 60:43-56.