Automated phenotyping of plant shoots using imaging methods for analysis of plant stress responses - A review

Plant Methods

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Humplík, Jan F ^a   Lazár, Dušan ^a   Husičková, Alexandra ^a   Spíchal, Lukáš ^a  

^a PALACKÝ UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Biomass production; Chlorophyll fluorescence imaging; Hyperspectral imaging; Plant phenotyping; RGB digital imaging; Shoot growth; Thermal imaging

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928235319     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17464811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13007-015-0072-8     Document Type: Review

References (84)

1. Araus JL, Cairns JE. Field high-throughput phenotyping: the new crop breeding frontier. Trends Plant Sci. 2014;19:52-61.
2. Granier C, Vile D. Phenotyping and beyond: modelling the relationships between traits. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2014;18:96-102.
3. Fiorani F, Schurr U. Future scenarios for plant phenotyping. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2013;64:267-91.
4. Fiorani F, Rascher U, Jahne S, Schurr U. Imaging plants dynamics in heterogenic environments. Curr Opin Biotech. 2012;23:227-35.
5. Walter A, Studer B, Kölliker R. Advanced phenotyping offers opportunities for improved breeding of forage and turf species. Annals Bot. 2012;110:1271-9.
6. Jansen M, Pinto F, Nagel KA, van Dusschoten D, Fiorani F, Rascher U, et al. Non-invasive phenotyping methodologies enable the accurate characterization of growth and performance of shoots and roots. In: Tuberosa R, Graner A, Frison E, editors. Genomics of Plant Genetic Resources. Volume 1st ed. Netherlands: Springer; 2014. p. 173-206.
7. Pieruschka R, Poorter H. Phenotyping plants: genes, phenes and machines. Funct Plant Biol. 2012;39:813-20.
8. Roberts MJ, Long SP, Tieszen LL, Beadle CL. Measurement of plant biomass and net primary production of herbaceous vegetation. In: Hall DO, Scurlock JMO, Bolhar-Nordenkampf HR, Leegood RC, Long SP, editors. Photosynthesis and Production in a Changing Environment. Netherlands: Springer; 1993.
9. Rouphael Y, Mouneimne AH, Ismail A, Mendoza-De Gyves E, Rivera CM, Colla G. Modeling individual leaf area of rose (Rosa hybrida L.) based on leaf length and width measurement. Photosynthetica. 2010;48:9-15.
10. Cemek B, Unlukara A, Kurunc A. Nondestructive leaf-area estimation and validation for green pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) grown under different stress conditions. Photosynthetica. 2011;49:98-106.
11. Misle E, Kahlaoui B, Hachicha M, Alvarado P. Leaf area estimation in muskmelon by allometry. Photosynthetica. 2013;51:613-20.
12. Green JM, Appel H, MacNeal Rehrig E, Harnsomburana J, Chang J-F, Balint-Kurti P, et al. PhenoPhyte: a flexible affordable method to quantify 2D phenotypes from imagery. Plant Methods. 2012;8:45.
13. Zhang X, Hause RJ, Borevitz JO. Natural genetic variation for growth and development revealed by high-throughput phenotyping in Arabidopsis thaliana. G3-Genes Genom Genet. 2012;2:29-34.
14. Tessmer OL, Jiao Y, Cruz JA, Kramer DM, Chen J. Functional approach to high-throughput plant growth analysis. BMC Syst Biol. 2013;7 Suppl 6:S17.
15. Furbank RT, Tester M. Phenomics-technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck. Trends Plant Sci. 2011;16:635-44.
16. Honsdorf N, March TJ, Berger B, Tester M, Pillen K. High-throughput phenotyping to detect drought tolerance QTL in wild barley introgression lines. PLoS One. 2014;9, e97047.
17. Walter A, Scharr H, Gilmer F, Zierer R, Nagel KA, Ernst M, et al. Dynamics of seedling growth acclimation towards altered light conditions can be quantified via GROWSCREEN: a setup and procedure designed for rapid optical phenotyping of different plant species. New Phytol. 2007;174:447-55.
18. Golzarian MR, Frick RA, Rajendran K, Berger B, Roy S, Tester M, et al. Accurate inference of shoot biomass from high-throughput images of cereal plants. Plant Methods. 2011;7:1-11.
19. Fehér-Juhász E, Majer P, Sass L, Lantos C, Csiszár J, Turóczy Z, et al. Phenotyping shows improved physiological traits and seed yield of transgenic wheat plants expressing the alfalfa aldose reductase under permanent drought stress. Acta Physiol Plant. 2014;36:663-73.
20. Humplík JF, Lazár D, Fürst T, Husičková A, Hýbl M, Spíchal L. Automated integrative high-throughput phenotyping of plant shoots: a case study of the cold-tolerance of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Plant Methods. 2015;11:1-11.
21. Berger B, de Regt B, Tester M. High-throughput phenotyping of plant shoots. In: Normanly J, editor. High-Throughput Phenotyping in Plants. New York City: Humana Press; 2012. p. 9-20.
22. Camargo A, Papadopoulou D, Spyropoulou Z, Vlachonasios K, Doonan JH, Gay AP. Objective definition of Rosette shape variation using a combined computer vision and data mining approach. PLoS One. 2014;9, e96889.
23. Crowell S, Falcão AX, Shah A, Wilson Z, Greenberg AJ, McCouch SR. High-resolution inflorescence phenotyping using a novel image-analysis pipeline, PANorama. Plant Physiol. 2014;165:479-95.
24. Paulus S, Dupuis J, Riedel S, Kuhlmann H. Automated analysis of barley organs using 3d laser scanning: an approach for high throughput phenotyping. Sensors. 2014;14:12670-86.
25. Fanourakis D, Briese C, Max JF, Kleinen S, Putz A, Fiorani F, et al. Rapid determination of leaf area and plant height by using light curtain arrays in four species with contrasting shoot architecture. Plant Methods. 2014;10:9.
26. Neumann K, Klukas C, Friedel S, Rischbeck P, Chen D, Entzian A, Stein N, Graner A, Kilian B. Dissecting spatio-temporal biomass accumulation in barley under different water regimes using high-throughput image analysis. Plant Cell Environ 2015. doi: 10.1111/pce.12516, in press.
27. Kautsky H, Hirsch A. Neue Versuche zur Kohlensureassimilation. Naturwissenschaften. 1931;19:964.
28. Lazár D. Chlorophyll a fluorescence induction. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1999;1412:1-28.
29. Lazár D. The polyphasic chlorophyll a fluorescence rise measured under high intensity of exciting light. Funct Plant Biol. 2006;33:9-30.
30. Schreiber U, Schliwa U, Bilger W. Continuous recording of photochemical and non-photochemical chlorophyll fluorescence quenching with a new type of modulation fluorometer. Photosynth Res. 1986;10:51-62.
31. Omasa K, Shimazaki K-I, Aiga I, Larcher W, Onoe M. Image analysis of chlorophyll fluorescence transients for diagnosing the photosynthetic system of attached leaves. Plant Physiol. 1987;84:748-52.
32. Daley PF, Raschke K, Ball JT, Berry JA. Topography of photosynthetic activity of leaves obtained from video images of chlorophyll fluorescence. Plant Physiol. 1989;90:1233-8.
33. Lazár D, Sušila P, Nauš J. Early detection of plant stress from changes in distributions of chlorophyll a fluorescence parameters measured with fluorescence imaging. J Fluoresc. 2006;16:173-6.
34. Gorbe E, Calatayud A. Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence imaging technique in horticultural research: A review. Sci Hortic. 2012;138:24-35.
35. Harbinson J, Prinzenberg AE, Kruijer W, Aarts MGM. High throughput screening with chlorophyll fluorescence imaging and its use in crop improvement. Curr Opin Biotech. 2012;23:221-6.
36. Lazár D. Parameters of photosynthetic energy partitioning. J Plant Physiol. 2015;175:131-47.
37. Jansen M, Gilmer F, Biskup B, Nagel KA, Rascher U, Fischbach A, et al. Simultaneous phenotyping of leaf growth and chlorophyll fluorescence via GROWSCREEN FLUORO allows detection of stress tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana and other rosette plants. Funct Plant Biol. 2009;36:902-14.
38. Hashimoto Y, Ino T, Kamer PJ, Naylor AW, Strain BR. Dynamic analysis of water stress of sunflower leaves by means of a thermal image processing system. Plant Physiol. 1984;76:266-9.
39. Kaňa R, Vass I. Thermoimaging as a tool for studying light-induced heating of leaves Correlation of heat dissipation with the efficiency of photosystem II photochemistry and non-photochemical quenching. Environ Exp Bot. 2008;64:90-6.
40. Siddiqui ZS, Cho I-L, Park S-H, Kwon T-R, Ahn B-O, Lee G-S, et al. Phenotyping of rice in salt stress environment using high-throughput infrared imaging. Acta Bot Croat. 2014;73:149-58.
41. Virlet N, Lebourgeois V, Martinez S, Costes E, Labbé S, Regnard J-L. Stress indicators based on airborne thermal imagery for field phenotyping a heterogeneous tree population for response to water constraints. J Exp Bot. 2014;65:5429-42.
42. Jones HG, Serraj R, Loveys BR, Xiong L, Wheaton A, Price AH. 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;36:978-89.
43. Costa JM, Ortuño MF, Lopes CM, Chaves MM. Grapevine varieties exhibiting differences in stomatal response to water deficit. Funct Plant Biol. 2012;39:179-89.
44. Grant OM, Davies MJ, James CM, Johnson AW, Leinonen I, Simpson DW. Thermal imaging and carbon isotope composition indicate variation amongst strawberry (Fragaria×ananassa) cultivars in stomatal conductance and water use efficiency. Environ Exp Bot. 2012;76:7-15.
45. Costa JM, Grant OM, Chaves MM. Thermography to explore plant-environment interactions. J Exp Bot. 2013;64:3937-49.
46. Rouse JWJ, Haas RH, Schell JA, Deering DW. Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. In: Freden SC, Marcanti EP, Becker MA, editors. NASA SP-351. Proceedings of the 3rd Earth Resources Technology Satellite-1Symposium. Washington DC: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Office; 1974. p. 309-17.
47. Gamon JA, Peñuelas J, Field CB. A narrow-waveband spectral index that tracks diurnal changes in photosynthetic efficiency. Remote Sens Environ. 1992;41:35-44.
48. Carter GA. Primary and secondary effects of water content on the spectra reflectance of leaves. Am J Bot. 1991;78:916-24.
49. Huber S, Tagesson T, Fensholt R. An automated field spectrometer system for studying VIS, NIR and SWIR anisotropy for semi-arid savanna. Remote Sens Environ. 2014;152:547-56.
50. Lamb DW, Schneider DA, Stanley JN. Combination active optical and passive thermal infrared sensor for low-level airborne crop sensing. Precis Agric. 2014;15:523-31.
51. Saberioon MM, Amin MSM, Anuar AR, Gholizadeh A, Wayayok A, Khairunniza-Bejo S. Assessment of rice leaf chlorophyll content using visible bands at different growth stages at both the leaf and canopy scale. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinform. 2014;32:35-45.
52. Garriga M, Retamales JB, Romero-Bravo S, Caligari PDS, Lobos GA. Chlorophyll, anthocyanin, and gas exchange changes assessed by spectroradiometry in Fragaria chiloensis under salt stress. J Integr Plant Biol. 2014;56:505-15.
53. Mahajan GR, Sahoo RN, Pandey RN, Gupta VK, Kumar D. Using hyperspectral remote sensing techniques to monitor nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur and potassium in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Precis Agric. 2014;15:499-522.
54. Petach AR, Toomey M, Aubrecht DM, Richardson AD. Monitoring vegetation phenology using an infrared-enabled security camera. Agri Forest Meteorol. 2014;195-196:143-51.
55. Ollinger SV. Sources of variability in canopy reflectance and the convergent properties of plants. New Phytol. 2011;189:375-94.
56. Mir RR, Zaman-Allah M, Sreenivasulu N, Trethowan R, Varshney RK. Integrated genomics, physiology and breeding approaches for improving drought tolerance in crops. Theor Appl Genet. 2012;125:625-45.
57. Berger B, Parent B, Tester M. High-throughput shoot imaging to study drought responses. J Exp Bot. 2010;61:3519-28.
58. Granier C, Aguirrezabal L, Chenu K, Cookson SJ, Dauzat M, Hamard P, et al. PHENOPSIS, an automated platform for reproducible phenotyping of plant responses to soil water de cit in. New Phytol. 2006;169:623-35.
59. Skirycz A, Vandenbroucke K, Clauw P, Maleux K, De Meyer B, Dhondt S, et al. Survival and growth of Arabidopsis plants given limited water are not equal. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29:212-4.
60. Clauw P, Coppens F, De Beuf K, Dhondt S, Van Daele T, Maleux K, et al. Leaf Responses to Mild Drought Stress in Natural Variants of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Physiol. 2015;114:254-84.
61. Tisné S, Serrand Y, Bach L, Gilbault E, Ben Ameur R, Balasse H, et al. Phenoscope: An automated large-scale phenotyping platform offering high spatial homogeneity. Plant J. 2013;74:534-44.
62. Pereyra-Irujo GA, Gasco ED, Peirone LS, Aguirrezábal LA. GlyPh: a low-cost platform for phenotyping plant growth and water use. Funct Plant B iol. 2012;39:905-13.
63. Coupel-Ledru A, Lebon É, Christophe A, Doligez A, Cabrera-Bosquet L, Péchier P, et al. Genetic variation in a grapevine progeny (Vitis vinifera L. cvs Grenache×Syrah) reveals inconsistencies between maintenance of daytime leaf water potential and response of transpiration rate under drought. J Exp Bot. 2014;65:6205-218.
64. Chen D, Neumann K, Friedel S, Kilian B, Chen M, Altmann T, et al. Dissecting the Phenotypic Components of Crop Plant Growth and Drought Responses Based on High-Throughput Image Analysis. Plant Cell. 2014;26:4636-55.
65. Cseri A, Sass L, Törjék O, Pauk J, Vass I, Dudits D. Monitoring drought responses of barley genotypes with semi-robotic phenotyping platform and association analysis between recorded traits and allelic variants of some stress genes. Aust J Crop Sci. 2013;7:1560-70.
66. Petrozza A, Santaniello A, Summerer S, Di Tommaso G, Di Tommaso D, Paparelli E, et al. Physiological responses to Megafol® treatments in tomato plants under drought stress: A phenomic and molecular approach. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam). 2014;174:185-92.
67. Harshavardhan VT, Van Son L, Seiler C, Junker A, Weigelt-Fischer K, Klukas C, et al. AtRD22 and AtUSPL1, Members of the Plant-Specific BURP Domain Family Involved in Arabidopsis thaliana Drought Tolerance. PLoS One. 2014;9, e110065.
68. Bresson J, Varoquaux F, Bontpart T, Touraine B, Vile D. The PGPR strain Phyllobacterium brassicacearum STM196 induces a reproductive delay and physiological changes that result in improved drought tolerance in Arabidopsis. New Phytol. 2013;200:558-69.
69. Bresson J, Vasseur F, Dauzat M, Labadie M, Varoquaux F, Touraine B, et al. Interact to survive: Phyllobacterium brassicacearum improves Arabidopsis tolerance to severe water deficit and growth recovery. PLoS One. 2014;9, e107607.
70. Gupta PK, Balyan HS, Gahlaut V, Kulwal PL. Phenotyping, genetic dissection, and breeding for drought and heat tolerance in common wheat: status and prospects. Plant Breeding Reviews. 2012;36:85-147.
71. Vasseur F, Bontpart T, Dauzat M, Granier C, Vile D. Multivariate genetic analysis of plant responses to water deficit and high temperature revealed contrasting adaptive strategies. J Exp Bot. 2014;65:6457-69.
72. Berger B, de Regt B, Tester M. Trait dissection of salinity tolerance with plant phenomics. In: Shabala S, Cuin TA, editors. Plant Salt Tolerance. New York City: Humana Press; 2012. p. 399-413.
73. Rajendran K, Tester M, Roy SJ. Quantifying the three main components of salinity tolerance in cereals. Plant, Cell Environ. 2009;32:237-49.
74. Harris BN, Sadras VO, Tester M. A water-centred framework to assess the effects of salinity on the growth and yield of wheat and barley. Plant Soil. 2010;336:377-89.
75. +-pyrophosphatase gene (AVP1) improves the shoot biomass of transgenic barley and increases grain yield in a saline field. Plant Biotechnol J. 2014;12:378-86.
76. Hairmansis A, Berger B, Tester M, Roy SJ. Image-based phenotyping for non-destructive screening of different salinity tolerance traits in rice. Rice. 2014;7:16.
77. Chaerle L, Pineda M, Romero-Aranda R, Van Der Straeten D, Barón M. Robotized thermal and chlorophyll fluorescence imaging of pepper mild mottle virus infection in Nicotiana benthamiana. Plant Cell Physiol. 2006;47:1323-36.
78. Moreau D, Schneider C, Huguet T, Salon C, Munier-Jolain N. Can differences of nitrogen nutrition level among Medicago truncatula genotypes be assessed non-destructively? Probing with a recombinant inbred lines population. Plant Signal Behav. 2009;4:30-2.
79. Poiré R, Chochois V, Sirault XRR, Vogel JP, Watt M, Furbank RT. Digital imaging approaches for phenotyping whole plant nitrogen and phosphorus response in Brachypodium distachyon. J Integr Plant Biol. 2014;56:781-96.
80. Neilson EH, Edwards AM, Blomstedt CK, Berger B, Moller BL, Gleadow RM. Utilization of a high-throughput shoot imaging system to examine the dynamic phenotypic responses of a C4 cereal crop plant to nitrogen and water deficiency over time. J Exp Bot. 2015;66:1817-32.
81. Chaerle L, Hagenbeek D, Vanrobaeys X, Van Der Straeten D. Early detection of nutrient and biotic stress in Phaseolus vulgaris. Int J Remot Sens. 2007;28:3479-92.
82. Devacht S, Lootens P, Baert J, Van Waes J, Van Bockstaele E, Roldán-Ruiz I. Evaluation of cold stress of young industrial chicory (Cichorium intybus L.) plants by chlorophyll a fluorescence imaging. I. Light induction curve. Photosynthetica. 2011;49:161-71.
83. Lootens P, Devacht S, Baert J, Van Waes J, Van Bockstaele E, Roldán-Ruiz I. Evaluation of cold stress of young industrial chicory (Cichorium intybus L.) by chlorophyll a fluorescence imaging. II. Dark relaxation kinetics. Photosynthetica. 2011;49:185-94.
84. Mishra A, Mishra KB, Höermiller II, Heyer AG, Nedbal L. Chlorophyll fluorescence emission as a reporter on cold tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana accessions. Plant Signal Behav. 2011;6:301.