Translating High-Throughput Phenotyping into Genetic Gain

Trends in Plant Science

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2018, Pages 451-466

  Araus, José Luis ^a   Kefauver, Shawn C ^a   Zaman Allah, Mainassara ^b   Olsen, Mike S ^c   Cairns, Jill E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^b CIMMYT   (Zimbabwe)

^c CIMMYT   (Kenya)

Author keywords

field phenotyping; genetic gain; high throughput; remote sensing

Indexed keywords

CROP; GENETICS; GENOMICS; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HETEROSIS; PHENOTYPE; PLANT; PLANT BREEDING; PLANT DEVELOPMENT; PROCEDURES; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS;

CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; GENOMICS; HYBRID VIGOR; PHENOTYPE; PLANT BREEDING; PLANT DEVELOPMENT; PLANTS; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCI;

EID: 85043993701     PISSN: 13601385     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2018.02.001     Document Type: Review

References (105)

1. Acreche, M.M., et al. Physiological bases of genetic gains in Mediterranean bread wheat yield in Spain. Eur. J. Agron. 28 (2008), 162–170.
2. Sadras, V.O., et al. Genetic gain in yield and associated changes in phenotype, trait plasticity and competitive ability of South Australian wheat varieties released between 1958 and 2007. Crop Pasture Sci. 62 (2011), 533–549.
3. Araus, J.L., Cairns, J.E., Field high-throughput phenotyping, the new frontier in crop breeding. Trends Plant Sci. 19 (2014), 52–61.
4. Ghanem, M.E., et al. Physiological phenotyping of plants for crop improvement. Trends Plant Sci. 20 (2015), 139–144.
5. Tardieu, F., et al. Plant phenomics, from sensors to knowledge. Curr. Biol. 27 (2017), R770–R783.
6. Abera Desta, Z., Ortiz, R., Genomic selection: genome-wide prediction in plant improvement. Trends Plant Sci. 19 (2014), 592–601.
7. Blum, A., Genomics for drought resistance – getting down to earth. Funct. Plant Biol. 41 (2014), 1191–1198.
8. Stützel, H., et al. The future of field trials in Europe: establishing a network beyond boundaries. Trend Plant Sci. 21 (2016), 92–95.
9. Kirchgessner, N., et al. The ETH field phenotyping platform FIP: a cable-suspended multi-sensor system. Funct. Plant Biol. 44 (2016), 154–168.
10. Virlet, N., et al. Field Scanalyzer: an automated robotic field phenotyping platform for detailed crop monitoring. Funct. Plant Biol. 44 (2016), 143–153.
11. Passioura, J.B., Angus, J.F., Improving productivity of crops in water-limited environments. Adv. Agron. 106 (2010), 37–75.
12. Pauli, D., et al. The quest for understanding phenotypic variation via integrated approaches in the field environment. Plant Physiol. 172 (2016), 622–634.
13. Furbank, R.T., Tester, M., Phenomics – technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck. Trends Plant Sci. 16 (2011), 635–644.
14. Xu, Y., et al. Enhancing genetic gain in the era of molecular breeding. J. Exp. Bot. 68 (2017), 2641–2666.
15. Falconer, D.S., Mackay, T.F.C., Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 4th edn, 1996, Longman Group Ltd.
16. 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. 126 (2013), 867–887.
17. Lorenz, A.J., Resource allocation for maximizing prediction accuracy and genetic gain of genomic selection in plant breeding: a simulation experiment. G3 (Bethesda) 3 (2013), 481–491.
18. Rebetzke, G.J., et al. High-throughput phenotyping technologies allow accurate selection of stay-green. J. Exp. Bot. 67 (2016), 4919–4924.
19. Navarro, J., et al. A study of allelic diversity underlying flowering-time adaptation in maize landraces. Nat. Genet. 49 (2017), 476–480.
20. Masuka, B., et al. Gains in maize genetic improvement in Eastern and Southern Africa: I. CIMMYT hybrid breeding pipeline. Crop Sci. 57 (2017), 168–179.
21. Deery, D.M., et al. Proximal remote sensing buggies and potential applications for field-based phenotyping. Agronomy 4 (2014), 349–379.
22. Deery, D.M., et al. Methodology for high-throughput field phenotyping of canopy temperature using airborne thermography. Front. Plant Sci., 7, 2016, 1808.
23. Fahlgren, N., et al. Lights, camera, action: high-throughput plant phenotyping is ready for a close-up. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 24 (2015), 93–99.
24. Tattaris, M., et al. A direct comparison of remote sensing approaches for high-throughput phenotyping in plant breeding. Front. Plant Sci., 7, 2016, 1131.
25. De Souza, A.P., et al. Tansley review. Rooting for cassava: insights into photosynthesis and associated physiology as a route to improve yield potential. New Phytol. 213 (2017), 50–65.
26. Araus, J.L., et al. Plant breeding and water stress in C3 cereals: what to breed for?. Ann. Bot. 89 (2002), 925–940.
27. Condon, A.G., et al. Breeding for high water-use efficiency. J. Exp. Bot. 55 (2004), 2447–2460.
28. Araus, J.L., et al. Breeding for yield potential and stress adaptation in cereals. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 27 (2008), 1–36.
29. Rebetzke, G.J., et al. Quantitative trait loci for carbon isotope discrimination are repeatable across environments and wheat mapping populations. Theor. Appl. Genet. 118 (2008), 123–137.
30. Fang, Y., Ramasamy, R.P., Current and prospective methods for plant disease detection. Biosensors (Basel) 5 (2015), 537–561.
31. Mutka, A.M., Bart, R.S., Image-based phenotyping of plant disease symptoms. Front. Plant Sci., 5, 2015, 734.
32. Quemada, M., Airborne hyperspectral images and ground-level optical sensors as assessment tools for maize nitrogen fertilization. Remote Sens. 6 (2014), 2940–2962.
33. Zarco-Tejada, P.J., et al. Seasonal stability of chlorophyll fluorescence quantified from airborne hyperspectral imagery as an indicator of net photosynthesis in the context of precision agriculture. Remote Sens. Environ. 179 (2016), 89–103.
34. Pinto, F., et al. Sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence from high-resolution imaging spectroscopy data to quantify spatio-temporal patterns of photosynthetic function in crop canopies. Plant Cell Environ. 39 (2016), 1500–1512.
35. Wagle, P., et al. Comparison of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence, light-use efficiency, and process-based GPP models in maize. Ecol. Appl. 26 (2016), 1211–1222.
36. Asner, G.P., et al. Spectroscopy of canopy chemicals in humid tropical forests. Remote Sens. Environ. 116 (2011), 3587–3598.
37. Asner, G.P., et al. Quantifying forest canopy traits: imaging spectroscopy versus field survey. Remote Sens. Environ. 158 (2015), 15–27.
38. Serbins, S., et al. Leaf optical properties reflect variation in photosynthetic metabolism and its sensitivity to temperature. J. Exp. Bot. 63 (2012), 489–502.
39. Yendrek, C.R., et al. High-throughput phenotyping of maize leaf physiological and biochemical traits using hyperspectral reflectance. Plant Physiol. 173 (2017), 614–626.
40. Silva-Perez, V., et al. Hyperspectral reflectance as a tool to measure biochemical and physiological traits in wheat. J. Exp. Bot. 69 (2017), 483–496.
41. Prins, A., et al. Rubisco catalytic properties of wild and domesticated relatives provide scope for improving wheat photosynthesis. J. Exp. Bot. 67 (2016), 1827–1838.
42. Sankaran, S., et al. Low-altitude, high-resolution aerial imaging systems for row and field crop phenotyping: a review. Eur. J. Agron. 70 (2015), 112–123.
43. Weber, V.S., et al. Prediction of grain yield using reflectance spectra of canopy and leaves in maize plants grown under different water regimes. Field Crops Res. 128 (2012), 82–90.
44. Hernandez, J., et al. Using ridge regression models to estimate grain yield from field spectral data in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown under three water regimes. Remote Sens. 7 (2015), 2109–2126.
45. Montesinos-López, A., et al. Genomic Bayesian functional regression models with interactions for predicting wheat grain yield using hyper-spectral image data. Plant Methods, 13, 2017, 62.
46. Masuka, B., et al. Gains in maize genetic improvement in Eastern and Southern Africa: II. CIMMYT open pollinated varieties (OPVs) breeding pipeline. Crop Sci. 57 (2017), 180–191.
47. Thomas, H., Howarth, C.J., Five ways to stay green. J. Exp. Bot. 51 (2000), 329–337.
48. Friedli, M., et al. Terrestrial 3D laser scanning to track the increase in canopy height of both monocot and dicot crop species under field conditions. Plant Methods, 12, 2016, 9.
49. Hämmerle, M., Höfle, B., Direct derivation of maize plant and crop height from low-cost time-of-flight camera measurements. Plant Methods, 12, 2016, 50.
50. Tanger, P., et al. Field-based high throughput phenotyping rapidly identifies genomic regions controlling yield components in rice. Sci. Rep., 7, 2017, 42839.
51. Liang, X., et al. A high-throughput maize kernel traits scorer based on line-scan imaging. Measurement 90 (2016), 453–460.
52. Miller, N.D., et al. A robust, high-throughput method for computing maize ear, cob, and kernel attributes automatically from images. Plant J. 89 (2017), 169–178.
53. Pauli, D., et al. Field-based high-throughput plant phenotyping reveals the temporal patterns of quantitative trait loci associated with stress-responsive traits in cotton. G3 (Bethesda) 36 (2016), 865–879.
54. Gage, J.L., et al. TIPS: a system for automated image-based phenotyping of maize tassels. Plant Methods, 13, 2017, 21.
55. Singh, A., et al. Machine learning for high-throughput stress phenotyping in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 21 (2016), 110–124.
56. Mohanty, S.P., et al. Using deep learning for image-based plant disease detection. Front. Plant Sci., 7, 2016, 1419.
57. Fuentes, A., et al. A robust deep-learning-based detector for real-time tomato plant diseases and pests recognition. Sensors (Basel), 17, 2017, E2022.
58. Sun, S., et al. In-field high-throughput phenotyping of cotton plant height using LiDAR. Remote Sens., 9, 2017, 377.
59. Confalonieri, R., et al. PocketPlant3D: analysing canopy structure using a smartphone. Biosyst. Eng. 164 (2017), 1–12.
60. Aquino, A., et al. A new methodology for estimating the grapevine-berry number per cluster using image analysis. Biosyst. Eng. 156 (2017), 80–95.
61. Cooper, M., et al. Predicting the future of plant breeding: complementing empirical evaluation with genetic prediction. Crop Pasture Sci. 65 (2014), 311–336.
62. Gaffney, J., et al. Industry-scale evaluation of maize hybrids selected for increased yield in drought-stress conditions of the US Corn Belt. Crop Sci. 55 (2015), 1608–1618.
63. Bernal-Vasquez, A.-M., et al. The importance of phenotypic data analysis for genomic prediction – a case study comparing different spatial models in rye. BMC Genomics, 15, 2014, 646.
64. Shi, J., et al. ARGOS8 variants generated by CRISPR-Cas9 improve maize grain yield under field drought stress conditions. Plant Biotechnol. 15 (2017), 207–216.
65. Rodríguez-Álvarez, M.X., et al. Spatial models for field trials. arXiv, 2016 1607.08255v1 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.08255.
66. Federer, W.T., Crossa, J., I.4 screening experimental designs for quantitative trait loci, association mapping, genotype by environment interaction, and other investigations. Front. Physiol., 3, 2012, 156.
67. Zaman-Allah, M., et al. Unmanned aerial platform-based multi-spectral imaging for field phenotyping of maize. Plant Methods, 11, 2015, 35.
68. Cullis, B.R., et al. Spatial analysis of multi-environment early generation trials. Biometrics 54 (1998), 1–18.
69. Lado, B., et al. Increased genomic prediction accuracy in wheat breeding through spatial adjustment of field trial data. G3 (Bethesda) 33 (2013), 2105–2114.
70. Velazco, J.G., et al. Modelling spatial trends in sorghum breeding field trials using a two-dimensional P-spline mixed model. Theor. Appl. Genet. 130 (2017), 1375–1392.
71. Coppens, F., et al. Unlocking the potential of plant phenotyping data through integration and data-driven approaches. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 4 (2017), 58–63.
72. Ubbens, J.R., Stavness, I., Deep plant phenomics: a deep learning platform for complex plant phenotyping tasks. Front. Plant Sci., 8, 2017, 1190.
73. Shakoor, N., et al. High throughput phenotyping to accelerate crop breeding and monitoring of diseases in the field. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 38 (2017), 184–192.
74. Chenu, K., et al. Contribution of crop models to adaptation in wheat. Trends Plants Sci. 22 (2017), 472–490.
75. Jones, J.W., et al. A brief history of agricultural systems models. Agric. Syst. 155 (2017), 240–254.
76. Li, T., et al. From ORYZA2000 to ORYZA (v3): an improved simulation model for rice in drought and nitrogen-deficient environments. Agric. For. Meterol. 237–238 (2017), 246–256.
77. Parent, B., Tardieu, F., Can current crop models be used in the phenotyping era for predicting the genetic variability of yield of plants subjected to drought or high temperature?. J. Exp. Bot. 65 (2014), 6179–6189.
78. Jin, Z., et al. Do maize models capture the impacts of heat and drought stresses on yield? Using algorithm ensembles to identify successful approaches. Global Change Biol. 22 (2016), 3112–3126.
79. Rötter, R.P., et al. Crop-climate models need an overhaul. Nat. Clim. Change 1 (2011), 175–177.
80. Rosenzweig, C., et al. Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111 (2014), 3268–3273.
81. Tesfaye, K., et al. Maize systems under climate change in sub-Saharan Africa: potential impacts on production and food security. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag. 7 (2015), 247–271.
82. Wang, E., et al. The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions. Nat. Plants, 3, 2017, 17102.
83. Falloon, P., et al. Using climate information to support crop breeding decisions and adaptation in agriculture. World Agric. 5 (2015), 25–42 http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/89022/1/WorldAgriculture_5_1_Falloon.pdf.
84. Tesfaye, K., et al. Targeting drought-tolerant maize varieties in southern Africa: a geospatial crop modeling approach using big data. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 19 (2016), 75–92.
85. Gbegbelegbe, S., et al. Baseline simulation for global wheat production with CIMMYT mega-environment specific cultivars. Field Crops Res. 202 (2017), 122–135.
86. Challinor, A.J., et al. Current warming will reduce yields unless maize breeding and seed systems adapt immediately. Nat. Clim. Change 6 (2016), 954–958.
87. Millet, E.J., et al. Genome-wide analysis of yield in Europe: allelic effects vary with drought and heat scenarios. Plant Physiol. 172 (2016), 749–764.
88. Yousfi, S., et al. Comparative performance of remote sensing methods in assessing wheat performance under Mediterranean conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 164 (2016), 137–147.
89. Vergara-Díaz, O., et al. A novel remote sensing approach for prediction of maize yield under different conditions of nitrogen fertilization. Front. Plant Sci., 7, 2016, 666.
90. Elazab, A., et al. Detecting interactive effects of N fertilization and heat stress on maize productivity by remote sensing techniques. Eur. J. Agron. 73 (2016), 11–24.
91. Vergara-Diaz, O., et al. Grain yield loss assessment for winter wheat associated with the fungus Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici using digital and conventional parameters under field conditions. Crop J. 3 (2015), 200–210.
92. Zhou, B., et al. Low-cost assessment of wheat resistance to yellow rust through conventional RGB images. Comput. Electron. Agric. 116 (2015), 20–29.
93. Jain, M., et al. Mappingsmallholder wheat yields and sowing dates using micro-satellite data. Remote Sens., 8, 2016, 860.
94. Fang, S., et al. 3D quantification of plant root architecture in situ. Measuring Roots, 2012, Springer, 135–148.
95. Syal, A., A survey of computer vision methods for counting fruits and yield prediction. IJCSE 2 (2013), 346–350.
96. Gongal, A., et al. Sensors and systems for fruit detection and localization: a review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 116 (2015), 8–19.
97. Lin, Y., LiDAR: an important tool for next-generation phenotyping technology of high potential for plant phenomics?. Comput. Electron. Agric. 119 (2015), 61–73.
98. White, J.W., Conley, M.M., A flexible, low-cost cart for proximal sensing. Crop Sci. 53 (2013), 1646–1649.
99. Kim, J., et al. Feasibility of employing a smartphone as the payload in a photogrammetric UAV system. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 79 (2013), 1–18.
100. Gago, J., et al. UAVs challenge to assess water stress for sustainable agriculture. Agric. Water Manag. 153 (2015), 9–19.
101. Haghighattalab, A., et al. Application of unmanned aerial systems for high throughput phenotyping of large wheat breeding nurseries. Plant Methods, 12, 2016, 35.
102. Pabian, F., Commercial Satellite Imagery as an Evolving Open-Source Verification Technology: Emerging Trends and Their Impact for Nuclear Nonproliferation Analysis (Rep. No. EUR27687). 2015, European Commission.
103. Jain, M., et al. Mapping smallholder wheat yields and sowing dates using micro-satellite data. Remote Sens., 8, 2016, 860.
104. Rebetzke, G.J., et al. A multisite managed environment facility for targeted trait and germplasm phenotyping. Funct. Plant Biol. 40 (2013), 1–13.
105. Chapman, S.C., et al. Pheno-copter: a low-altitude, autonomous remote-sensing robotic helicopter for high-throughput field-based phenotyping. Agronomy 4 (2014), 279–301.