Plant phenomics: An overview of image acquisition technologies and image data analysis algorithms

GigaScience

Volumn 6, Issue 11, 2017, Pages

  Perez Sanz, Fernando ^a   Navarro, Pedro J ^b   Egea Cortines, Marcos ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CARTAGENA   (Spain)

^b Universidad Pol Cartagena   (Spain)

Author keywords

Algorithms; Artificial vision; Deep learning; Hyperspectral cameras; Machine learning; Segmentation

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; AUTOMATION; BIOMICS; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA EXTRACTION; FLUORESCENCE IMAGING; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MACHINE LEARNING; NONHUMAN; PHENOMICS; PHENOTYPE; PLANT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SOFTWARE; THERMOGRAPHY; TOMOGRAPHY; GENETICS; GENOMICS; PLANT GENOME; PROCEDURES;

GENOME, PLANT; GENOMICS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MACHINE LEARNING; PHENOTYPE; PLANTS;

EID: 85042182943     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2047217X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/gigascience/gix092     Document Type: Review

References (233)

1. Tucker C. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sens Environ 1979. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0034425779900130. Accessed 11 October 2016.
2. Myneni RB, Keeling CD, Tucker CJ et al. Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991. Nature 1997;386:698-702.
3. DeFries R, Townshend J. NDVI-derived land cover classifications at a global scale. Int J Remote 1994. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0143116940 8954345. Accessed 11 October 2016.
4. Pettorelli N, Vik J, Mysterud A et al. Using the satellitederived NDVI to assess ecological responses to environmental change. Trends Ecol 2005. Available at: http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953470500162X. Accessed 11 October 2016.
5. Mkhabela MS, Bullock P, Raj S et al. Crop yield forecasting on the Canadian Prairies using MODIS NDVI data. Agric For Meteorol 2011;151:385-93.
6. GROTEN SME. NDVI-crop monitoring and early yield assessment of Burkina Faso. Int J Remote Sens 1993;14:1495-515.
7. Jones HG, Stoll M, Santos T et al. Use of infrared thermography for monitoring stomatal closure in the field: application to grapevine. J Exp Bot 2002;53:2249-60.
8. Chaerle L, Van der Straeten D. Seeing is believing: imaging techniques to monitor plant health. Biochim Biophys Acta-Gene Struct Expr 2001;1519:153-66.
9. Sirault XRR, James RA, Furbank RT et al. A new screening method for osmotic component of salinity tolerance in cereals using infrared thermography. Funct Plant Biol 2009;36:970.
10. Lobet G, Pagès L, Draye X. A novel image analysis toolbox enabling quantitative analysis of root system architecture. Plant Physiol 2011;157:29-39.
11. Galkovskyi T, Mileyko Y, Bucksch A et al. GiA Roots: software for the high throughput analysis of plant root system architecture. BMC Plant Biol 2012;12:116.
12. French A, Ubeda-Tomas S, Holman TJ et al. Highthroughput quantification of root growth using a novel image-analysis tool. Plant Physiol 2009;150:1784-95.
13. Golzarian MR, Frick RA, Rajendran K et al. Accurate inference of shoot biomass from high-throughput images of cereal plants. Plant Methods 2011;7:2.
14. Fabre J, Dauzat M, Negre V et al. PHENOPSIS DB: an information system for Arabidopsis thaliana phenotypic data in an environmental context. BMC Plant Biol 2011;11.
15. Araus JL, Cairns JE. Field high-throughput phenotyping: the new crop breeding frontier. Trends Plant Sci 2014;19:52-61.
16. Furbank RT. Plant phenomics: from gene to form and function. Funct Plant Biol 2009;36:V-Vi.
17. Poorter H, Fiorani F, Pieruschka R et al. Tansley review: Pampered inside, pestered outside? Differences and similarities between plants growing in controlled conditions and in the field. New Phytol 2016;838-55.
18. Yang W, Duan L, Chen G et al. Plant phenomics and highthroughput phenotyping: accelerating rice functional genomics using multidisciplinary technologies. Curr Opin Plant Biol 2013;16:180-7.
19. White J, Andrade-Sanchez P, Gore M. Field-based phenomics for plant genetics research. F Crop 2012. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842901200130X. Accessed 31 August 2016.
20. Fahlgren N, Gehan MA, Baxter I. Lights, camera, action: high-throughput plant phenotyping is ready for a close-up. Curr Opin Plant Biol 2015:93-9.
21. Furbank RT, Tester M. Phenomics-technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck. Trends Plant Sci 2011;16: 635-44.
22. Granier C, Vile D. Phenotyping and beyond: modelling the relationships between traits. Curr Opin Plant Biol 2014;18:96-102.
23. White J, Andrade-Sanchez P, Gore M et al. Field-based phenomics for plant genetics research. F Crop 2012;133:101-12.
24. Furbank RT, Tester M. Phenomics-technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck. Trends Plant Sci 2011;16: 635-44.
25. Simko I, Jimenez-Berni JA, Sirault XRR. Phenomic approaches and tools for phytopathologists. Phytopathology 2016. Available at: http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/10. 1094/PHYTO-02-16-0082-RVW. Accessed 28 August 2017.
26. da Silva Marques J. Monitoring photosynthesis by in vivo chlorophyll fluorescence: application to high-throughput plant phenotyping. Appl Photosynth-New Prog 2016; Intech:3-22.
27. Gonzalez RC, Woods RE. Digital Image Processing. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall Press; 2002.
28. Russ J, Woods R. The image processing handbook. 1995. Available at: http://journals.lww.com/jcat/Citation/1995/11000/The Image Processing Handbook 2nd Ed.26.aspx. Accessed 25 April 2017.
29. Jain A. Fundamentals of digital image processing. 1989. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=59921. Accessed 25 April 2017.
30. Sonka M, Hlavac V, Boyle R. Image Processing, Analysis, and Machine Vision. 4th ed. CL Engineering. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2014. Available at: https://books.google.es/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QePKAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd& pg=PR11&dq=image+analysis+a+review&ots=95qB21F9B-&sig=kSGTMS9GfxkddVJUHnxnBzU2VL8. Accessed 24 April 2017.
31. Soille P. Morphological Image Analysis: Principles and Applications. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2013. Available at: https://books.google.es/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZFzxCAAAQ BAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=image+analysis+a+review&ots=-oc-0SEZ6g&sig=wLoRbdNSusr-5UtgDRvtMHVqjQ. Accessed 25 April 2017.
32. Li L, Zhang Q, Huang D. A review of imaging techniques for plant phenotyping. Sensors 2014;14:20078-111.
33. Singh A, Ganapathysubramanian B, Singh AK et al. Machine learning for high-throughput stress phenotyping in plants. Trends Plant Sci 2016;110-24.
34. Fiorani F, Schurr U. Future scenarios for plant phenotyping. Annu Rev Plant Biol 2013;64:267-91.
35. Lepage G, Bogaerts J, Meynants G. Time-delay-integration architectures in CMOS image sensors. IEEE Trans Electron Devices 2009;56:2524-33.
36. Yu C, Nie K, Xu J et al. A low power digital accumulation technique for digital-domain CMOS TDI image sensor. Sensors 2016;16:1572.
37. Teledyne Dalsa. https://www.teledynedalsa.com/corp/. Accessed 4 April 2017.
38. IMEC. Imec launches TDI, multispectral and hyperspectral sensors. Available at: http://optics.org/news/8/2/8. Accessed 24 April 2017.
39. Van Der Heijden G, Song Y, Horgan G et al. SPICY: towards automated phenotyping of large pepper plants in the greenhouse. Funct Plant Biol 2012;39:870-7.
40. Navarro PJ, Fernández C, Weiss J et al. Development of a configurable growth chamber with a computer vision system to study circadian rhythm in plants. Sensors (Basel) 2012;12:15356-75.
41. Subramanian R, Spalding EP, Ferrier NJ. A high throughput robot system for machine vision based plant phenotype studies. Mach Vis Appl 2013;24:619-36.
42. Zhang X, Huang C, Wu D et al. High-throughput phenotyping and QTL mapping reveals the genetic architecture of maize plant growth. Plant Physiol 2017;173(3): 1554-64.
43. Virlet N, Sabermanesh K, Sadeghi-Tehran P et al. Field Scanalyzer: an automated robotic field phenotyping platform for detailed crop monitoring. Funct Plant Biol 2017;44:143.
44. Deery D, Jimenez-Berni J, Jones H et al. Proximal remote sensing buggies and potential applications for field-based phenotyping. Agronomy 2014;4:349-79.
45. Comar A, Burger P, de Solan B et al. A semi-automatic system for high throughput phenotyping wheat cultivars infield conditions: description and first results. Funct Plant Biol 2012;39:914.
46. Brown MZ, Burschka D, Hager GD. Advances in computational stereo. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2003;25:993-1008.
47. Biskup B, Scharr H, Schurr U et al. A stereo imaging system for measuring structural parameters of plant canopies. Plant Cell Environ 2007;30:1299-308.
48. Nguyen TT, Slaughter DC, Max N et al. Structured light-based 3D reconstruction system for plants. Sensors (Switzerland) 2015;15:18587-612.
49. Klodt M, Herzog K, Töpfer R et al. Field phenotyping of grapevine growth using dense stereo reconstruction. BMC Bioinformatics 2015;16:143.
50. Rose J, Kicherer A, Wieland M et al. Towards automated large-scale 3D phenotyping of vineyards under field conditions. Sensors 2016;16:2136.
51. Xiong X, Yu L, Yang W et al. A high-throughput stereoimaging system for quantifying rape leaf traits during the seedling stage. Plant Methods 2017;13:7.
52. Paproki A, Sirault XRR, Berry S et al. A novel mesh processing based technique for 3D plant analysis. BMC Plant Biol 2012;12:63.
53. Nguyen TT, Slaughter DC, Maloof JN et al. Plant phenotyping using multi-view stereo vision with structured lights. In: Valasek J, Thomasson JA, eds. International Society for Optics and Photonics. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: SPIE Commercial + Scientific Sensing and Imaging; 2016:986608. Available at: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx? doi=10.1117/12.2229513. Accessed 19 May 2017.
54. Rose JC, Paulus S, Kuhlmann H. Accuracy analysis of a multi-view stereo approach for phenotyping of tomato plants at the organ level. Sensors (Basel) 2015;15: 9651-65.
55. Schwartz S. An overview of 3D plant phenotyping methods. Phenospex Smart Plant Anal 2015. Available at: https://phenospex.com/blog/an-overview-of-3d-plantphenotyping-methods/#ref. Accessed 19 June 2017.
56. Lee K-S, Cohen WB, Kennedy RE et al. Hyperspectral versus multispectral data for estimating leaf area index in four different biomes. Remote Sens Environ 2004;91:508-20.
57. Dozier J, Painter TH. Multispectral and hyperspectral remote sensing of alpine snow properties. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 2004;32:465-94.
58. Adam E, Mutanga O, Rugege D. Multispectral and hyperspectral remote sensing for identification and mapping of wetland vegetation: a review. Wetl Ecol Manag 2010;18:281-96.
59. Qin J, Chao K, Kim MS et al. Hyperspectral andmultispectral imaging for evaluating food safety and quality. J Food Eng 2013;118:157-71.
60. van der Meer FD, van der WerffHMA, van Ruitenbeek FJA et al. Multi-and hyperspectral geologic remote sensing: a review. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 2012;14:112-28.
61. Mehl PM, Chao K, Kim M et al. Detection of defects on selected apple cultivars using hyperspectral and multispectral image analysis. Appl Eng Agric 2002;18:219.
62. Ferrato L-J. Comparing hyperspectral and multispectral imagery for land classification of the lower don river, Toronto. MsC Thesis. Ryerson University. Available at: http://www.geography.ryerson.ca/wayne/MSA/LisaJenFerratoMRP2012.pdf. Accessed 27 April 2017.
63. Cubert S. 137-ButterflEYE NIR-Cubert-GmbH. Available at: http://cubert-gmbh.com/product/s-137-butterfleye-nir/. Accessed 4 June 2017.
64. Kise M, Park B, HeitschmidtGWet al. Multispectral imaging system with interchangeable filter design. Comput Electron Agric 2010;72:61-8.
65. Li P, Lee S-H, Hsu H-Y et al. Nonlinear fusion of multispectral citrus fruit image data with information contents. Sensors 2017;17:142.
66. Wahabzada M, Mahlein A-K, Bauckhage C et al. Plant phenotyping using probabilistic topic models: uncovering the hyperspectral language of plants. Sci Rep 2016;6:22482.
67. Kuska M, Wahabzada M, Leucker M et al. Hyperspectral phenotyping on the microscopic scale: towards automated characterization of plant-pathogen interactions. Plant Methods 2015;11:28.
68. Klose R, Penlington J. Usability study of 3D time-of-flight cameras for automatic plant phenotyping. Bornimer 2009. Available at: https://www.hs-osnabrueck.de/fileadmin/HSOS/Homepages/COALA/Veroeffentlichungen/2009-CBA-3DToF.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2017.
69. Song Y, Glasbey CA, van der Heijden GWAM et al. Combining Stereo and Time-of-Flight Images with Application to Automatic Plant Phenotyping. Berlin: Springer; 2011:467-78.
70. Alenyà G, Dellen B, Torras C. 3D modelling of leaves from color and ToF data for robotized plant measuring. Robot Autom (ICRA) 2011. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5980092/. Accessed 2 May 2017.
71. McCormick RF, Truong SK, Mullet JE. 3D sorghum reconstructions from depth images identify QTL regulating shoot architecture. Plant Physiol 2016;172:823-34.
72. Paulus S, Behmann J, Mahlein A et al. Low-cost 3D systems: suitable tools for plant phenotyping. Sensors 2014. Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/14/2/3001/htm. Accessed 2 May 2017.
73. Microsoft. Kinect for Windows sensor components and specifications. 2010. Available at: https://msdn.microsoft. com/en-us/library/jj131033.aspx. Accessed 7 May 2017.
74. Azzari G, GouldenM, Rusu R. Rapid characterization of vegetation structure with a Microsoft Kinect sensor. Sensors 2013;13:2384-98.
75. Chéné Y, Rousseau D, Lucidarme P et al. On the use of depth camera for 3D phenotyping of entire plants. Comput Electron Agric 2012;82:122-7.
76. Wang G, Weng Q. Remote Sensing of Natural Resources. Available at: https://books.google.es/books?id=wIDNBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA9&dq=Light+Detection+and+Ranging+(LIDAR)+1970s&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0mbSksePTAhVJDxoKHaKxC6UQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=LightDetectionandRanging(LIDAR)1970s&f=false. Accessed 9 May 2017.
77. Lin Y. LiDAR: an important tool for next-generation phenotyping technology of high potential for plant phenomics? Comput Electron Agric 2015;119:61-73.
78. Vázquez-Arellano M, Griepentrog HW, Reiser D et al. 3-D imaging systems for agricultural applications-a review. Sensors (Basel) 2016;16(5).
79. Chen JM, Cihlar J. Retrieving Leaf Area Index of boreal conifer forests using Landsat TM images. Remote Sens Environ 1996;55:155-62.
80. Gwenzi D, Helmer E, Zhu X et al. Predictions of tropical forest biomass and biomass growth based on stand height or canopy area are improved by Landsat-scale phenology across Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Remote Sens 2017;9:123.
81. Kellndorfer JM, Walker WS, LaPoint E et al. Statistical fusion of lidar, InSAR, and optical remote sensing data for forest stand height characterization: a regional-scale method based on LVIS, SRTM, Landsat ETM+, and ancillary data sets. J Geophys Res Biogeosciences 2010;115.
82. BadreldinN, Sanchez-Azofeifa A. Estimating forest biomass dynamics by integrating multi-temporal Landsat satellite images with ground and airborne LiDAR data in the Coal Valley Mine, Alberta, Canada. Remote Sens 2015;7: 2832-49.
83. Andújar D, Rueda-Ayala V, Moreno H et al. Discriminating crop, weeds and soil surfacewith a terrestrial LIDAR sensor. Sensors (Switzerland) 2013;13:14662-75.
84. Sun S, Li C, Paterson A. In-field high-throughput phenotyping of cotton plant height using LiDAR. Remote Sens 2017;9:377.
85. Hosoi F, Nakabayashi K, Omasa K. 3-D modeling of tomato canopies using a high-resolution portable scanning lidar for extracting structural information. Sensors (Basel) 2011;11:2166-74.
86. Chaudhury A, Ward C, Talasaz A et al. Computer vision based autonomous robotic system for 3D plant growth measurement. In: 12th Conference on Computer and Robot Vision. Halifax, NS, Canada: IEEE; 2015; DOI: 10.1109/CRV.2015.45. Accessed 10 May 2017.
87. Kjaer KH, Ottosen C-O. 3D laser triangulation for plant phenotyping in challenging environments. Sensors (Basel) 2015;15:13533-47.
88. Lin Y. LiDAR: An important tool for next-generation phenotyping technology of high potential for plant phenomics? Comput Electron Agric 2015;119:61-73.
89. Wallace A, Nichol C, Woodhouse I. Recovery of forest canopy parameters by inversion of multispectral LiDAR data. Remote Sens 2012;4:509-31.
90. Morsy S, Shaker A, El-Rabbany A. Multispectral LiDAR data for land cover classification of urban areas. Sensors 2017;17:958.
91. Wallace AM, McCarthy A, Nichol CJ et al. Design and evaluation of multispectral LiDAR for the recovery of arboreal parameters. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 2014;52:4942-54.
92. Navarro P, Fernández C, Borraz R et al. A machine learning approach to pedestrian detection for autonomous vehicles using high-definition 3D range data. Sensors 2016;17: 18.
93. Padhi J, Misra RK, Payero JO. Estimation of soil water deficit in an irrigated cotton field with infrared thermography. F Crop Res 2012;126:45-55.
94. Guilioni L, Jones HG, Leinonen I et al. On the relationships between stomatal resistance and leaf temperatures in thermography. Agric For Meteorol 2008;148:1908-12.
95. Kranner I, Kastberger G, Hartbauer M et al. Noninvasive diagnosis of seed viability using infrared thermography. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:3912-7.
96. Jones HG. Use of infrared thermography for monitoring stomatal closure in the field: application to grapevine. J Exp Bot 2002;53:2249-60.
97. Fiorani F, Rascher U, Jahnke S et al. Imaging plants dynamics in heterogenic environments. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2012;23:227-35.
98. Mallona I, Egea-Cortines M, Weiss J. Conserved and divergent rhythms of CAM-related and core clock gene expression in the cactus Opuntia ficus-indica. Plant Physiol 2011;156:1978-89.
99. Somers DE, Webb A A, Pearson M et al. The short-period mutant, toc1-1, alters circadian clock regulation of multiple outputs throughout development in Arabidopsis thaliana. Development 1998;125:485-94.
100. Costa JM, Grant OM, Chaves MM et al. Thermography to explore plant-environment interactions. J Exp Bot 2013;64:3937-49.
101. Zia S, Romano G, Spreer W et al. Infrared thermal imaging as a rapid tool for identifying water-stress tolerant maize genotypes of different phenology. J Agron Crop Sci 2013;199:75-84.
102. Jones HG, Serraj R, Loveys BR 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.
103. Jones HG, Stoll M, Santos T et al. Use of infrared thermography for monitoring stomatal closure in the field: application to grapevine. J Exp Bot 2002;53:2249-60.
104. Prashar A, Jones H. Infra-Red thermography as a highthroughput tool for field phenotyping. Agronomy 2014;4:397-417.
105. Mahlein A-K. Precision agriculture and plant phenotyping are information-and technology-based domains with specific demands and challenges for. Plant Dis 2016;100:241-51.
106. Oerke E-C, Fr öhling P, Steiner U. Thermographic assessment of scab disease on apple leaves. Precis Agric 2011;12:699-715.
107. Chapple CC, Vogt T, Ellis BE et al. An Arabidopsismutant defective in the general phenylpropanoid pathway. Plant Cell 1992;4:1413-24.
108. Gould PD, Diaz P, Hogben C et al. Delayed fluorescence as a universal tool for the measurement of circadian rhythms in higher plants. Plant J 2009;58:893-901.
109. Sweeney BM, Prezelin BB, Wong D et al. In vivo chlorophylla fluorescence transients and the circadian-rhythm of photosynthesis in gonyaulax-polyedra. Photochem Photobiol 1979;30:309-11.
110. Sheehan H, Moser M, Klahre U et al. MYB-FL controls gain and loss of floral UV absorbance, a key trait affecting pollinator preference and reproductive isolation. Nat Genet 2015. Available at: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ng.3462. Accessed 30 June 2017.
111. Pérez-Bueno ML, Pineda M, Cabeza FM et al. Multicolor fluorescence imaging as a candidate for disease detection in plant phenotyping. Front Plant Sci 2016;7:1790.
112. Fang Y, Ramasamy R. Current and prospective methods for plant disease detection. Biosensors 2015;5:537-61.
113. Boviki A. Handbook of Image am Video Processing. Austin, Texas, USA: Academic Press; 2005.
114. Zhang Y, Wang S, Sun P. Pathological brain detection based on wavelet entropy and Hu moment invariants. Bio-medical Mater 2015. at: http://content.iospress.com/articles/bio-medical-materials-and-engineering/bme1426. Accessed 18 October 2016.
115. Borisjuk L, Rolletschek H, Neuberger T. Surveying the plant's world by magnetic resonance imaging. Plant J 2012;129-46. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2012.04927.x. Accessed 15 May 2017.
116. Rascher U, Blossfeld S, Fiorani F et al. Non-invasive approaches for phenotyping of enhanced performance traits in bean. Funct Plant Biol 2011;38:968-83.
117. Horigane A, Engelaar W, Maruyama S. Visualisation of moisture distribution during development of rice caryopses (Oryza sativa L.) by nuclear magnetic resonance microimaging. J Cereal 2001. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0733521000903485. Accessed 15 May 2017.
118. Glidewell S. NMR imaging of developing barley grains. J Cereal Sci 2006. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0733521005000913. Accessed 15 May 2017.
119. Converse A, Ahlers E, Bryan T. Positron emission tomography (PET) of radiotracer uptake and distribution in living plants: methodological aspects. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 2013;297(2):241-6.
120. Karve AA, AlexoffD, Kim D et al. In vivo quantitative imaging of photoassimilate transport dynamics and allocation in large plants using a commercial positron emission tomography (PET) scanner. BMC Plant Biol 2015;15:273.
121. Yang W, Xu X, Duan L et al. High-throughput measurement of rice tillers using a conveyor equipped with x-ray computed tomography. Rev Sci Instrum 2011;82:25102.
122. Tracy SR, Roberts JA, Black CR et al. The X-factor: visualizing undisturbed root architecture in soils using X-ray computed tomography. J Exp Bot 2010;61:311-3.
123. Mooney SJ, Pridmore TP, Helliwell J et al. Developing X-ray computed tomography to non-invasively image 3-D root systems architecture in soil. Plant Soil 2012;352: 1-22.
124. Metzner R, Eggert A, van Dusschoten D et al. Direct comparison of MRI and X-ray CT technologies for 3D imaging of root systems in soil: potential and challenges for root trait quantification. Plant Methods 2015;11:17.
125. Lontoc-Roy M, Dutilleul P, Prasher SO et al. Advances in the acquisition and analysis of CT scan data to isolate a crop root system from the soil medium and quantify root system complexity in 3-D space. Geoderma 2006;137:231-41.
126. Perret JS, Al-Belushi ME, Deadman M. Non-destructive visualization and quantification of roots using computed tomography. Soil Biol Biochem 2007;39:391-9.
127. Staedler YM, Masson D, Schönenberger J et al. Plant tissues in 3D via X-Ray tomography: simple contrasting methods allow high resolution imaging. PLoS One 2013;8:e75295.
128. Dhondt S, Vanhaeren H, Van Loo D et al. Plant structure visualization by high-resolution X-ray computed tomography. Trends Plant Sci 2010;15:419-22.
129. Brodersen CR, Roddy AB. New frontiers in the threedimensional visualization of plant structure and function. Am J Bot 2016;103:184-8.
130. Solem JE. Programming computer vision with python. In: Andy Oram, Mike Hendrikosn, eds. Programming Computer Vision with Python. 1st ed. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media; 2012;264. Available at: http://programming computervision.com/. Accessed 15 July 2017.
131. Navarro PJ, Pérez F, Weiss J et al. Machine learning and computer vision system for phenotype data acquisition and analysis in plants. Sensors (Switzerland) 2016;16:641.
132. Hamuda E, Glavin M, Jones E. A survey of image processing techniques for plant extraction and segmentation in the field. Comput Electron Agric 2016;184-99. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016816 9916301557. Accessed 10 May 2017.
133. Krig S. Computer vision metrics: survey, taxonomy, and analysis. In: Scott K, ed. Apress; 2014. Available at: http://www.apress.com/us/book/9781430259299. Accessed September 2017.
134. Wang Z, Li H, Zhu Y et al. Review of plant identification based on image processing. Arch Comput Methods Eng 2016. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11831-016-9181-4. Accessed 10 May 2017.
135. Bhagwat R, Dandawate Y. Indian plant species identification under varying illumination and viewpoint conditions. In: 2016 Conference on Advances in Signal Processing. IEEE; 2016;469-73. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7746217/. Accessed 9 May 2017.
136. Thangadurai K, Padmavathi K. Computer visionimage enhancement for plant leaves disease detection. In: 2014 World Congress on Computing and Communication Technologies; 2014. IEEE; 2014;173-5. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6755131/. Accessed 10 May 2017.
137. Padmavathi K, Thangadurai K. Implementation of RGB and grayscale images in plant leaves disease detection -comparative study. Indian J Sci Technol 2016;9. Available at: http://www.indjst.org/index.php/indjst/article/view/77739. Accessed 20 May 2017.
138. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJJ et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 2016;3:160018.
139. Singh V, MisraAK. Detection of plant leaf diseases using image segmentation and soft computing techniques. Inf Process Agric 2017;4:41-9.
140. Zhao ZQ, Ma LH, Cheung Y ming et al. ApLeaf: an efficient android-based plant leaf identification system. Neurocomputing 2015;151:1112-9.
141. Otsu N. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1979;9:62-6.
142. Liu J-C, Lin T-M. Location and image-based plant recognition and recording system. J Inform Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing 2015;6(5):898-910. Available at: http://www.jihmsp.org/~jihmsp/2015/vol6/JIH-MSP-2015-05-007.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2017.
143. Chéné Y, Rousseau D, Belin É tienn et al. Shape descriptors to characterize the shoot of entire plant from multiple side views of a motorized depth sensor. Mach Vis Appl 2016;1-15. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00138-016-0762-x. Accessed 19 May 2017.
144. Vincent L, Vincent L, Soille P. Watersheds in digital spaces: an efficient algorithm based on immersion simulations. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 1991;13:583-98.
145. Patil S, Soma S, Nandyal S. Identification of growth rate of plant based on leaf features using digital image processing techniques. Int J Emerg Technol Adv Eng 2013;3.
146. Barnes C, Balzter H, Barrett K et al. Individual tree crown delineation from airborne laser scanning for diseased larch forest stands. Remote Sens 2017;9:231.
147. Vukadinovic D, Polder G. Watershed and supervised classification based fully automated method for separate leaf segmentation. The Netherland Congress on Computer Vision; 2015;1-2. Available at: http://edepot.wur.nl/385470. Accessed 20 August 2017.
148. Rother C, Kolmogorov V, Blake A. GrabCut-interactive foreground extraction using iterated graph cuts. ACM Trans Graph 2004. Available at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/grabcut-interactive-foregroundextraction-using-iterated-graph-cuts/. Accessed 10 May 2017.
149. Boykov YY, Jolly M-P. Interactive graph cuts for optimal boundary & region segmentation of objects in N-D images. In: Proceedings of "Internation Conference on Computer Vision"; Vancouver, Canada, July 2001. p. 105-12. IEEE; 2001. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/937505/. Accessed 3 November 2016.
150. SonkaM, Hlavac V, Boyle R. Image Processing, Analysis, and Machine Vision. 3rd ed. Thomson, ed. Toronto: Thomson; 2008.
151. Wang X. The grabcut segmentation technique as used in the study of tree image extraction. In: Zhu FG, X, eds. In: Proceedings of the 2009 International Workshop on Information Security and Application (IWISA 2009); Qingdao, China, November 2009. Qingdao, China: Academy Publisher; 2009. Available at: https://pdfs. semanticscholar.org/538c/ff4cf1f660e1b5ab8ed115f272b612 2035e3.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2017.
152. Liu J-C, Chiang C-Y, Chen S. Image-Based plant recognition by fusion of multimodal information. In: 2016 10th International Conference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing (IMIS). IEEE; 2016;5-11. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7794433/. Accessed 30 May 2017.
153. Kass M, Witkin A, Terzopoulos D. Snakes: active contour models. Int J Comput Vis 1988;1:321-31.
154. Minervini M, Abdelsamea MM, Tsaftaris SA. Image-based plant phenotyping with incremental learning and active contours. Ecol Inform 2014;23:35-48.
155. Suta L, Bessy F, Veja C et al. Active contours: application to plant recognition. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (ICCP). IEEE; 2012;181-7. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6356183/. Accessed 10 May 2017.
156. Shi Y, KarlWC. A real-time algorithm for the approximation of level-set-based curve evolution. IEEE Trans Image Process 2008;17:645-56.
157. Chan TF, Vese LA. Active contours without edges. IEEE Trans Image Process 2001;10:266-77.
158. Pape J-M, Klukas C. Utilizing machine learning approaches to improve the prediction of leaf counts and individual leaf segmentation of rosette plant images. In: Computer Vision Problems in Plant Phenotyping (CVPPP 2015). British Machine Vision Association; 2015;1-12. Available at: http://www.bmva.org/bmvc/2015/cvppp/papers/paper003/index.html. Accessed 21 September 2016.
159. Arivazhagan S, Shebiah RN, Ananthi S et al. Detection of unhealthy region of plant leaves and classification of plant leaf diseases using texture features. Agric Eng Int CIGR J 2013;15:211-7.
160. Mouille G, Robin S, LecomteMet al. Classification and identification of Arabidopsis cell wall mutants using Fourier-Transform InfraRed (FT-IR) microspectroscopy. Plant J 2003;35:393-404.
161. Guijarro M, Riomoros I, Pajares G et al. Discrete wavelets transform for improving greenness image segmentation in agricultural images. Comput Electron Agric 2015;118:396-407.
162. Iyer-Pascuzzi AS, Symonova O, Mileyko Y et al. Imaging and analysis platform for automatic phenotyping and trait ranking of plant root systems. Plant Physiol 2010;152:1148-57.
163. Lowe DG. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vis 2004;60:91-110.
164. Bay H, Ess A, Tuytelaars T et al. Speeded-Up Robust Features (SURF). Comput Vis Image Underst 2008;110:346-59.
165. Dalal N, Triggs B. Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In: International Conference on Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition (CVPR '05). IEEE; 2005;886-93. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1467360/. Accessed 9 December 2016.
166. Guo W, Fukatsu T, Ninomiya S. Automated characterization of flowering dynamics in rice using field-acquired timeseries RGB images. Plant Methods 2015;11:7.
167. Santos T, Oliveira A. Image-based 3D digitizing for plant architecture analysis and phenotyping. In: SIBGRAPI 2012 XXV Conf. 2012. Available at: http://www.cnptia.embrapa.br/~thiago/pool/2012-08-24 sibgrapi.pdf. Accessed 9 December 2016.
168. Roscher R, Herzog K, Kunkel A et al. Automated image analysis framework for high-throughput determination of grapevine berry sizes using conditional random fields. Comput Electron Agric 2014;100:148-58. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016816991300 2780. Accessed 11 March 2017.
169. Lantz B. Machine LearningWith R. 1st ed. Jones J, Sheikh A, eds. Birmingham: Packt Publishing; 2013.
170. Müller A, Guido S. Introduction to Machine Learning With Python. 1st ed. Schanafelt D, editor. Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media; 2016.
171. Smola A, Vishwanathan SV. Introduction to Machine Learning. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
172. Baranowski P, Jedryczka M, MazurekWet al. Hyperspectral and thermal imaging of oilseed rape (Brassica napus) response to fungal species of the genus Alternaria. PLoS One 2015;10:e0122913.
173. Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A. Deep Learning. Boston, USA: MIT Press; Available at: www.deeplearningbook.org. Accessed 21 August 2017.
174. Fukushima K. Neocognitron: a self organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position. Biol Cybern 1980;36:193-202.
175. Pound MP, Burgess AJ, Wilson MH et al. Deep machine learning provides state-of-the-art performance in imagebased plant phenotyping. BioRxiv 2016;53033. Available at: http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/053033. Accessed 21 September 2016.
176. Mohanty SP, Hughes D, Salathé M. Using deep learning for image-based plant disease detection. 2016;1-7.
177. Tsaftaris SA, Minervini M, Scharr H. Machine learning for plant phenotyping needs image processing. Trends Plant Sci 2016;989-91. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1360138516301613. Accessed 27 May 2017.
178. Naik HS, Zhang J, Lofquist A et al. A real-time phenotyping framework using machine learning for plant stress severity rating in soybean. Plant Methods 2017;13:23. Available at: http://plantmethods.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13007-017-0173-7. Accessed 21 August 2017.
179. Nagler PL, Inoue Y, Glenn E. et al. Cellulose absorption index (CAI) to quantifymixed soil-plant litter scenes. Remote Sens Environ 2003;87:310-25.
180. Ren H, Zhou G, Zhang F et al. Evaluating cellulose absorption index (CAI) for non-photosynthetic biomass estimation in the desert steppe of InnerMongolia. Chinese Sci Bull 2012;57:1716-22.
181. Serbin G, Daughtry CST, Hunt ER et al. Effects of soil composition and mineralogy on remote sensing of crop residue cover. Remote Sens Environ 2009;113:224-38.
182. Eskandari I, Navid H, Rangzan K. Evaluating spectral indices for determining conservation and conventional tillage systems in a vetch-wheat rotation. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 2016;4:93-8.
183. Galvão LS, Formaggio AR, Tisot DA. Discrimination of sugarcane varieties in Southeastern Brazil with EO-1 Hyperion data. Remote Sens Environ 2005;94:523-34.
184. Price J. Leaf area index estimation from visible and nearinfrared reflectance data. Remote Sens Environ 1995;52:55-65.
185. Zarco-Tejada P, Berjón A, Miller J. Stress detection in crops with hyperspectral remote sensing and physical simulation models. Proc Airborne 2004.
186. Cai J, Golzarian MR, Miklavcic SJ. Novel image segmentation based on machine learning and its application to plant analysis. Int J Inf Electron Eng 2011;1.
187. Gong P, Pu R, Biging G. Estimation of forest leaf area index using vegetation indices derived fromHyperion hyperspectral data. IEEE Trans 2003.
188. Brown HE, Diuk-Wasser MA, Guan Y et al. Comparison of three satellite sensors at three spatial scales to predict larval mosquito presence in Connecticut wetlands. Remote Sens Environ 2008;112:2301-8.
189. Apan A, Held A, Phinn S et al. Detecting sugarcane "orange rust" disease using EO-1 Hyperion hyperspectral imagery. Int J Remote Sens 2004;25:489-98.
190. Tucker CJ, Slayback DA, Pinzon JE et al. Higher northern latitude normalized difference vegetation index and growing season trends from 1982 to 1999. Int J Biometeorol 2001;45:184-90.
191. Haboudane D, Miller JR, Pattey E et al. Hyperspectral vegetation indices and novel algorithms for predicting green LAI of crop canopies: modeling and validation in the context of precision agriculture. Remote Sens Environ 2004;90: 337-52.
192. Pagani A, Echeverría HE, Andrade FH et al. Characterization of corn nitrogen status with a greenness index under different availability of sulfur. Agron J Am Soc Agron 2009;101:315.
193. Blackburn GA. Spectral indices for estimating photosynthetic pigment concentrations: a test using senescent tree leaves. Int J Remote Sens 1998;19:657-75.
194. Hunt ER, Dean Hively W, Fujikawa SJ et al. Acquisition of NIR-green-blue digital photographs from unmanned aircraft for crop monitoring. Remote Sens 2010;2:290-305.
195. Bell GE, Howell BM, Johnson GV et al. Optical sensing of turfgrass chlorophyll content and tissue nitrogen. HortScience 2004;39:1130-2.
196. Haboudane D, Miller JR, Tremblay N et al. Integrated narrow-band vegetation indices for prediction of crop chlorophyll content for application to precision agriculture. Remote Sens Environ 2002;81:416-26.
197. Timm BC, McGarigal K. Fine-scale remotely-sensed cover mapping of coastal dune and salt marsh ecosystems at Cape Cod National Seashore using Random Forests. Remote Sens Environ 2012;127:106-17.
198. Parenteau MP, Bannari A, El-Harti A et al. Characterization of the state of soil degradation by erosion using the hue and coloration indices. IGARSS 2003. In: Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2003. IGARSS '03. Proceedings. IEEE; 2003;2284-6.
199. Pajares G, Ruz JJ, de la Cruz JM. Performance analysis of homomorphic systems for image change detection. In: Pattern Recognition. Image Anal. Pt 1. Berlin: Springer; 2005;563-70. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/11492429 68. Accessed 25 July 2017.
200. Oluleye B, Leisa A, Jinsong L et al. On the application of genetic probabilistic neural networks and cellular neural networks in precision agriculture. Asian J Comput Inf Syst 2014;2:90-101.
201. Huang K-Y. Application of artificial neural network for detecting Phalaenopsis seedling diseases using color and texture features. Comput Electron Agric 2007;57: 3-11.
202. Perez AJ, Lopez F, Benlloch J V et al. Colour and shape analysis techniques for weed detection in cereal fields. Comput Electron Agric 2000;25:197-212.
203. Mokhtar U, Ali MAS, Hassanien AE et al. Identifying Two of Tomatoes Leaf Viruses Using Support Vector Machine. New Delhi: Springer; 2015;771-82. Available at: http://link. springer.com/10.1007/978-81-322-2250-7 77. Accessed 11 September 2017.
204. Casanova J, O'Shaughnessy S, Evett S et al. Development of a wireless computer vision instrument to detect biotic stress in wheat. Sensors 2014;14:17753-69.
205. Knoll FJ, Holtorf T, Hussmann S. Modified 3D time-offlight camera for object separation in organic farming. In: Kress BC, Osten W, Urbach HP, eds. International Society for Optics and Photonics; 2017;103351R. Available at: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx? doi=10.1117/12.2270276. Accessed 9 August 2017.
206. Bauer SD, Korč F, Förstner W. The potential of automatic methods of classification to identify leaf diseases frommultispectral images. Precis Agric 2011;12:361-77.
207. Atkinson JA, Lobet G, Noll M et al. Combining semiautomated image analysis techniques with machine learning algorithms to accelerate large scale genetic studies. BioRxiv 2017. Available at: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/06/20/152702. Accessed 8 August 2017.
208. Ballabeni A, Apollonio FI, Gaiani M et al. Advances in image pre-processing to improve automated 3d reconstruction. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci ISPRS Arch 2015;315-23. Available at: http://www.int-archphotogramm-remote-sens-spatial-inf-sci.net/XL-5-W4/315/2015/. Accessed 20 July 2017.
209. Tsung-Shiang H. An improvement stereo vision images processing for object distance measurement. Int J Autom Smart Technol 2015;5:85-90.
210. Kazmi W, Foix S, Alenyà G et al. Indoor and outdoor depth imaging of leaves with time-of-flight and stereo vision sensors: analysis and comparison. ISPRS J PhotogrammRemote Sens 2014;88:128-46.
211. Raza SEA, Prince G, Clarkson JP et al. Automatic detection of diseased tomato plants using thermal and stereo visible light images. PLoS One 2015;10:e0123262.
212. Klodt M, Herzog K, Töpfer R et al. Field phenotyping of grapevine growth using dense stereo reconstruction. BMC Bioinformatics 2015;16:143.
213. Raza SEA, Smith HK, Clarkson GJJ et al. Automatic detection of regions in spinach canopies responding to soil moisture deficit using combined visible and thermal imagery. PLoS One 2014;9:e97612.
214. Zhang X, Huang C, Wu D et al. High-throughput phenotyping and QTL mapping reveals the genetic architecture of maize plant growth. Plant Physiol 2017;01516. Available at: http://www.plantphysiol.org/lookup/doi/10.1104/pp.16. Accessed 10 May 2017.
215. Wahabzada M, Mahlein A-K, Bauckhage C et al. Plant phenotyping using probabilistic topic models: uncovering the hyperspectral language of plants. Sci Rep 2016;6: 22482.
216. Pandey P, Ge Y, Stoerger V et al. High throughput in vivo analysis of plant leaf chemical properties using hyperspectral imaging. Front Plant Sci 2017;8:1348.
217. Wahabzada M, Mahlein AK, Bauckhage C et al. Metro maps of plant disease dynamics-automated mining of differences using hyperspectral images. PLoS One 2015;10:e0116902.
218. Ochoa D, Cevallos J, Vargas G et al. Hyperspectral imaging system for disease scanning on banana plants. In: Proceedings Volume 9864, Sensing for Agriculture and Food Quality and Safety VIII. 2016;4:98640M.
219. Mahlein A-K, Kuska MT, Thomas S et al. Plant disease detection by hyperspectral imaging: from the lab to the field. Adv Anim Biosci 2017;8:238-43.
220. Chattopadhyay S, Akbar SA, Elfiky NM et al. Measuring and modeling apple trees using time-of-flight data for automation of dormant pruning applications. In: 2016 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV); 2016 IEEE; 2016;1-9. Available at: http://ieeexplore. ieee.org/document/7477596/. Accessed 4 September 2017.
221. Chéné Y, Rousseau D, Lucidarme P et al. On the use of depth camera for 3D phenotyping of entire plants. Comput Electron Agric 2012;82:122-7.
222. Weiss U, Biber P, Laible S et al. Plant species classification using a 3D LIDAR sensor and machine learning. In: Ninth International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications; 2010. IEEE; 2010;339-45. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5708854/. Accessed 8 August 2017.
223. Liu S, Baret F, Abichou M et al. Estimating wheat green area index from ground-based LiDAR measurement using a 3D canopy structure model. Agric For Meteorol 2017;247: 12-20.
224. Greaves HE, Vierling LA, Eitel JUH et al. Applying terrestrial lidar for evaluation and calibration of airborne lidar-derived shrub biomass estimates in Arctic tundra. Remote Sens Lett 2017;8:175-84.
225. Paulus S, Dupuis J, Mahlein A-K et al. Surface feature based classification of plant organs from 3D laser scanned point clouds for plant phenotyping. BMC Bioinformatics 2013;14:238.
226. Lopatin J, Dolos K, Hernández HJ et al. Comparing generalized linear models and random forest to model vascular plant species richness using LiDAR data in a natural forest in central Chile. Remote Sens Environ 2016;173:200-10.
227. Deery DM, Rebetzke GJ, Jimenez-Berni JA et al. Methodology for high-throughput field phenotyping of canopy temperature using airborne thermography. Front Plant Sci 2016;7:1808.
228. García-Tejero IF, Hernández A, Padilla-Díaz CM et al. Assessing plant water status in a hedgerow olive orchard from thermography at plant level. Agric Water Manag 2017;188:50-60.
229. Rousseau C, Belin E, Bove E et al. High throughput quantitative phenotyping of plant resistance using chlorophyll fluorescence image analysis. Plant Methods 2013;9:17.
230. Wetterich CB, Felipe de Oliveira Neves R, Belasque J et al. Detection of Huanglongbing in Florida using fluorescence imaging spectroscopy and machine-learning methods. Appl Opt 2017;56:15.
231. Hillnhutter C, Sikora RA, Oerke E-C et al. Nuclear magnetic resonance: a tool for imaging belowground damage caused by Heterodera schachtii and Rhizoctonia solani on sugar beet. J Exp Bot 2012;63:319-27.
232. Yang W, Xu X, Duan L et al. High-throughput measurement of rice tillers using a conveyor equipped with x-ray computed tomography. Rev Sci Instrum 2011;82:25102.
233. Donis-González IR, Guyer DE, Fulbright DW et al. Postharvest noninvasive assessment of fresh chestnut (Castanea spp.) internal decay using computer tomography images. Postharvest Biol Technol 2014;94:14-25.