Next Article in Journal
Comparison of Biostimulant Treatments in Acmella oleracea Cultivation for Alkylamides Production
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Wild Potato Germplasm for Tuber Starch Content and Nitrogen Utilization Efficiency
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Environmental Conditions Effect in the Phytochemical Composition of Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Cultivars
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Role of Vegetable Genetic Resources in Nutrition Security and Vegetable Breeding
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Genebank Phenomics: A Strategic Approach to Enhance Value and Utilization of Crop Germplasm

Australian Grains Genebank, Agriculture Victoria, 110 Natimuk Road, Horsham 3400, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2020, 9(7), 817; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9070817
Submission received: 3 June 2020 / Revised: 25 June 2020 / Accepted: 26 June 2020 / Published: 29 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Biodiversity and Genetic Resources)

Abstract

:
Genetically diverse plant germplasm stored in ex-situ genebanks are excellent resources for breeding new high yielding and sustainable crop varieties to ensure future food security. Novel alleles have been discovered through routine genebank activities such as seed regeneration and characterization, with subsequent utilization providing significant genetic gains and improvements for the selection of favorable traits, including yield, biotic, and abiotic resistance. Although some genebanks have implemented cost-effective genotyping technologies through advances in DNA technology, the adoption of modern phenotyping is lagging. The introduction of advanced phenotyping technologies in recent decades has provided genebank scientists with time and cost-effective screening tools to obtain valuable phenotypic data for more traits on large germplasm collections during routine activities. The utilization of these phenotyping tools, coupled with high-throughput genotyping, will accelerate the use of genetic resources and fast-track the development of more resilient food crops for the future. In this review, we highlight current digital phenotyping methods that can capture traits during annual seed regeneration to enrich genebank phenotypic datasets. Next, we describe strategies for the collection and use of phenotypic data of specific traits for downstream research using high-throughput phenotyping technology. Finally, we examine the challenges and future perspectives of genebank phenomics.

1. Introduction

The global population is forecasted to reach 9.6 billion people by 2050, with the current 1.3% annual growth rate of crop productivity required to increase to 2.4% to meet the expected food security needs [1]. Concomitantly, climate change is impacting global food and biofuel production chains through rising temperatures, increasing carbon dioxide concentrations, unpredictable rainfall patterns, and soil degradation [2]. Extreme weather conditions, such as drought and heat that occurs during critical crop growth phases, reduce yield and production of major grain crops, and can trigger the emergence of new pests and diseases that can cause further production losses [2,3]. To produce enough food to meet this increasing demand under current and future growing conditions, it is critical that plant breeders develop new high yielding, environmentally resilient, and sustainable crop varieties.
Crop improvement through breeding relies heavily on genebanks worldwide to provide genetically diverse material that contains genes and alleles that govern desirable agronomic traits [4]. Novel alleles discovered from genebank genetic resources underpin the selection of, and enhance the genetic gain in breeding programs for favorable traits such as high yield, abiotic, and biotic stress adaptation [5,6,7]. However, under current practices, most genebanks can only offer end-users limited passport and basic characterization data based on morphological traits guided by standard international descriptors [8]. Only a small number of accessions have agronomic and quality trait data available [9]. There are around 1750 individual genebanks worldwide that preserve approximately 7.4 million accessions of agricultural genetic materials [10]. However, only 10% of these accessions are used for breeding purposes, partly due to poor phenotypic and genotypic characterization or lack of evaluation for agronomic traits [11] or because they are not publicly available [5].
Li et al. [12] pointed out two major limitations preventing the exploitation of genebank genetic resources for breeding programs: 1) time and available resources for thorough characterization of accessions at a large scale; and 2) identifying and introducing the allelic variance into elite breeding materials. This missing characterization data makes searching for an accession with specific desirable agronomic traits from within the millions of accessions held in genebanks, like ‘finding the proverbial needle in a haystack’ [13]. Therefore, to improve the utilization of germplasm, genebanks are increasingly required to move beyond providing basic passport data that defines only the identity and origin of the genetic resources, to thoroughly catalogue and make publicly available additional information for accessions such as agronomic, physiological, and genetic traits that meets the specific needs of end-users [14,15,16].
McCouch et al. [17] proposed a strategic three-step approach to effectively mine genebank genetic resources that combines genomics and phenomics with efficient database management to enhance the value of available germplasm that is readily available to breeders. Although the use of genomics by genebanks have advanced due to the development of DNA technology and next-generation genome sequencing [18,19], genebank phenomics still lag in the valorizing of available plant genetic resources [20,21]. The lack of robust, cost-efficient phenotyping tools and systematic collection of phenotypic data of accessions are currently a bottleneck, restricting the exploration and utilization of genebank genetic resources for downstream research and breeding [22]. A vast amount of useful agronomic and physiological information from genebank seed regeneration trials are not systematically recorded, contributing to the underutilization of germplasm [5]. Since standard genebank characterization practices can be expensive and time-consuming, a strategic cost-effective approach for simultaneously collecting multiple phenotypic trait data from genebank accessions during routine annual seed regenerations is essential to efficiently collect this valuable data and provide it to end-users [7,23,24]. This phenotypic data can be readily available for use in combination with genotypic information in subsequent genomic studies and breeding purposes [19,25]. High-throughput phenotyping (HTP) using sensors and imagers is a promising, efficient, and cost-effective approach to collect phenotypic data for multiple traits across large scale trials, that can then be used together with genomic data for accurate selection in breeding [26,27,28]. This approach has been successfully applied for genomic selection in wheat using various sensor-derived representations of agronomic and adaptive traits [29,30].
Although there are numerous excellent reviews on genebank mining using genomic approaches [13,18,31,32], only a handful of literature has addressed the exploitation of plant genetic resources using a phenomic approach is available and even do not fully cover genebank management practice as a whole [17,33,34,35]. In this manuscript, we examine: (i) current HTP methods that can be applied to phenotype accessions to leverage genebanks’ phenotypic dataset; (ii) compatible crop traits that can be phenotyped by HTP technology and catalogued together with passport data in a genebank database; and (iii) data management strategies to effectively exploit these phenotypic data for future use. Finally, we discuss the challenges and future perspectives of genebank phenomics. Although there are numerous HTP methods, we limit our discussions to those that are more applicable to characterize and evaluate genebank germplasm in accordance with the international crop descriptors.

2. Phenomics to Unlock the Genetic Potential of Genebank Germplasm

2.1. Plant Phenomics and Its Potential Applications for Plant Genetic Resources Research

Plant phenomics is a multidisciplinary field that enables the systematic and comprehensive research and development of robust HTP tools and methods for data capture, processing, handling, and meta-analysis of phenotypic properties, growth, the performance of crops, and their environments [22,36]. The foundation of plant phenomics is the advent of HTP technology, which contrasts with more conventional arduous manual and destructive phenotyping, as it uses sensor- or image-based instruments to non-destructively simultaneously measure morphological, agronomic, and physiological characteristics of crops on a large scale across time and space. HTP technology is fundamentally based on principles of interaction between plant cellular components and natural light spectra between 400–2500 nm [37]. By capturing and analyzing these interactions proximally or remotely, important morphological, agronomic and physiological properties can be derived such as crop growth status, phenology, water and nutrient content, and yield potential [38]. The HTP approach has been widely used for decades in agriculture and plant science research with promising outcomes [39,40].
Various HTP platforms that use a combination of multiple sensors have been developed over many years that are suitable for plant science research in controlled and field conditions [27,39]. In the controlled environment, the system such as the automated Scanalyzer 3D imaging platform developed by LemnaTec GmbH (Aachen, Germany) has been effectively used to phenotype various crops and traits [41,42]. In the field, many HTP platforms are currently deployed such as the Field Scanalyzer gantry type [43]; manned- [44] or unmanned ground vehicles (UGV) [45]; and manned- [29] or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) [46,47]. These platforms are equipped with multiple sensor types and can be used to capture various crop traits at the same time. These sensor technologies will continue to advance over time and are likely to become less expensive, and hence more affordable for use in plant science applications.
Sensors developed for HTP can be broadly classified into either active or passive sensors that need to be considered when used to capture data. Passive sensors measure reflectance coming directly from natural light, thus the data captured by these sensors are highly affected by environmental conditions. Examples of passive sensors are Analytical Spectral Devices (ASD) FieldSpec spectroradiometer [48,49]; red-green-blue (RGB) [50,51], multi- [52] and hyper-spectral [53], and thermal cameras [54]. Active sensors, however, use their own light source and therefore the resulting reflectance is much less affected by the environment, with crop circle [42] and light detection and ranging (LiDAR) [55] being typical examples. Regardless of which type is deployed, sensors must be well calibrated and raw data should be normalized before analysis for quality assurance. Individual or multiple sensors can be handheld and mounted on vehicles or platforms, depending on the experimental setup and availability [56].
The workflow of deploying sensors for phenotyping crop experiments usually involves three main steps: 1) data capture; 2) raw data processing and storage; and 3) validation and comprehensive data analysis. Raw data are captured by sensors and processed by computer software algorithms to derive digital plant parameters such as vegetation indices (VIs) or structural properties. Once validated by compatible ground truths from conventional observations, these digital parameters can be used as proxies of crop traits for subsequent analysis. For instance, one of the most common vegetative indices is the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), which is derived from red and near-infrared (NIR) spectral bands and is widely used as a representation of biomass, grain yield, and crop N status [57]. The 2D and 3D structural models can be reconstructed from RGB, multispectral, and thermal imagery to derive important agronomic traits for various crops under different environments such as flowering time of rice [58] and wheat [43]; crop biomass of field peas [42] and wheat [41]; plant height and biomass of rice [59] and barley [60]; seed characteristics of lentils [61], rice [62], and field peas [63]; architectural and physiological properties of apple trees [64]; height and morphological characteristics of blueberries [65]; canopy temperature of black poplars [66]; bunch architecture of grapevines [67]; and ripeness estimation [68] and fruit counts [69] of mangos. Recent advances in computer algorithms and machine learning have significantly improved the throughput of raw data processing and analysis, where the processing pipelines have enabled data capture, analysis, and extraction of multiple patterns and features simultaneously [70]. Machine learning in sensor- and image-based phenotyping has been applied successfully for germination assessment of tomato seeds [71], head count [72,73], yield prediction in wheat [74], and prediction of seed longevity in oilseed rape from chemical compositions [75].
Since thorough discussions on the development and application of HTP tools for agriculture research alone are not the main purpose of this review; readers can find detailed information about sensors and platforms, image processing and storage, data analysis approaches from numerous excellent reviews, and references cited therein [22,26,27,36,76,77,78,79].

2.2. Why Genebank Phenomics?

There are multiple factors, both subjective and objective, that make genebank phenomics feasible and strategic, i.e., the availability of cost-efficient HTP technology; the nature of routine operations; the pressure to efficiently exploit genetic resources for crop improvement and the conservation of genetic diversity. Phenotyping is the most expensive yet indispensable component of any plant research and crop improvement program to understand the genetic basis and interaction between genotypes and environments. The use of HTP tools and methods discussed above by genebanks will shorten the time requirement, increase throughput, improve consistency, reduce the overall cost of phenotyping projects, and improve selection accuracy in breeding programs, especially for large-scale trials [80].
Genebanks complete essential seed regeneration as routine practices to maintain the viability, quality, and quantity of accessions, e.g., when the quantity and viability of specific accessions fall below a standard threshold [7,81]. Characterization of germplasm for a range of phenotypic traits is undertaken during the regeneration process, however, traits are manually recorded, can be subjective, and are time-consuming to collect, limiting the amount of data able to be captured, resulting in a wasted opportunity for a comprehensive characterization of genetic materials, with the flow-on effect of restricting their subsequent utilization. Mining superior agronomic alleles for breeding is crucial for improving crop yield and resilience, with the availability of comprehensive phenotypic data for genebank germplasm enabling researchers and breeders to more accurately identify desired accessions for breeding projects [82].
The application of low-cost HTP methods to assess the true value of genetic resources, accurate estimation of their agronomic phenotypic traits for a complete phenotypic representation of collections will significantly improve the gains of pre-breeding or breeding programs with marginal extra expenses. This is particularly useful for studying complex traits such as grain yield. Multiple secondary traits captured by HTP tools that correlate well with target traits (i.e., grain yield) can be used as surrogates in yield selection models to improve prediction accuracy. For instance, Rutkoski et al. [29] showed that the use of canopy temperature and NDVI measured by aerial thermal and hyperspectral sensors substantially improved genomic and pedigree yield predictions of 557 wheat lines across five growing environments. Interestingly, the authors also pointed out that genetic value for grain yield can be accurately estimated by using these secondary phenotypic traits in absence of pedigree and genomic data. The phenotypic profiling of genebanks’ accessions can, therefore, provide direct support for phenomic selection or choice of parents in breeding programs.
Genomic selection has been proven as an excellent tool to estimate genomic breeding values and is now widely used as a routine selection method in crop breeding [83,84]. However, since its successful introduction over the last two decades, there has been a significantly faster loss of genetic variance in breeding programs compared to conventional phenotypic selection [85]. To slow down the loss of genetic diversity through genomic selection in plant breeding, a physiological breeding approach combining multiple integrative traits captured by HTP tools in conjunction with genomic selection methods, with a heavier weight placed on phenotypic components, could be an alternative [86]. The advantage of phenomic selection has been demonstrated by Rutkoski et al. [87], where the authors claimed that using an optimized breeding scheme with phenotypic selection for quantitative analysis of stem rust resistance in wheat would result in equal genetic gains as genomic selection, but higher genetic variance. This phenotypic selection approach is further supported by a recent study of Rincent et al. [88], where distinctive endophenotypes, such as transcripts, small RNAs, or metabolites, could be used as phenomic markers for the selection process. The authors found that the matrices of near infrared spectroscopy absorbance between 400 and 2500 nm of winter wheat grains and leaf tissue could provide better yield prediction than molecular-based markers. Thus, using these low-cost, high-throughput endophenotypic markers significantly improved genetic gains, while better conserving allelic diversity of breeding populations.
Finally, safeguarding genetic resources ex-situ for integrity, diversity, and allelic variability for future use is the mandatory task of every genebank whose materials fuel breeding programs, underpinning food security efforts and bringing billions of dollars in benefit [17]. For instance, by 1997, the world economy had benefited approximately $115 billion annually from using wild materials from genebanks to develop environmentally resilient and resistant crops [89]. Selections for desirable agronomic traits are the driving force of plant domestication and crop improvement. However, extensive breeding selections lead to loss of genetic variants, narrowing a crop’s genetic base and an overall erosion of crop diversity through breeding programs [40,90]. Alarmingly, there is also mounting evidence that indicates that allelic variance of genebank accessions might be lost over time through seed regeneration due to genetic drift and inbreeding, while its storage size and maintenance costs will keep increasing [91]. Genebank accessions are collected from various geographical locations, thus original phenotypic variance could be lost during ex-situ conservation and seed regenerations [92]. While DNA fingerprinting is the most effective method to verify the genetic integrity of regenerated materials, the associated genotyping cost is still too high for large scale genotyping of thousands of accessions per year [62]. Thus, a complete phenotypic assessment of accessions through periodic seed regenerations could be a counter measure to ensure that original phenotypic features are preserved. Furthermore, those accessions possessing desirable agronomic characteristics can be recommended for immediate use, whereas those which do not have attributes of immediate interest can be conserved for further evaluation under different and specific environmental conditions, or potentially be discarded.

3. Phenomic Characterization and Evaluation of Genebank Accessions

Missing or incomplete passport, characterization, and evaluation data is one of the main reasons for the underutilization of genebank germplasm. For decades, the crop descriptor lists developed by Bioversity International have been routinely used to standardize genebank data collection and to facilitate the exchange of information between genebanks and end-users. This data is also used by genebanks to catalogue morphological and physiological characteristics of various crop species for germplasm validation processes [8]. In this section, we discuss the potential of deploying HTP technology to routinely collect quantitative data of specific traits in line with these descriptor lists and the possibilities of collecting additional data with a marginal cost that can enriches genebank collections. Highly heritable morphological and physiological features can provide invaluable information for strategic selection schemes used by plant breeders to speed up the development of new, high yielding environmentally adaptive cultivars [93]. Table 1 details systematic HTP approaches of genebank germplasm for morphological and physiological traits in different environments.

3.1. Morphology

The collection of data on the morphology of accessions is a critical part of routine curatorial activities of any genebank. These data describe overall plant architecture, height, leaf shape, and angle. Conventionally, these data are visually assessed and manually recorded by curators, which are sometimes subjective in nature and prone to human errors. This labor-intensive and time-consuming notetaking can be replaced by robust HTP technology (Table 1). Morphological characteristics of various crops such as number of tillers (wheat) [94]; node and internode length (tomato) [95]; panicle, branch, and leaf number (rice, maize, tomato) [97]; and leaf shape (legumes) [102] can be easily acquired by cost-effective RGB imagery tools. The HTP technology can be flexibly applied for trait capture under various growing conditions including field and greenhouse environments. For example, plant height is an important botanical trait that is defined as the shortest distance from ground level to the upper boundary of photosynthetic tissues [145]. It is a useful indicator of crop growth rate, biomass, yield potential, and lodging resistance [46, 132]. Studies on wheat have shown that lodging can cause yield losses up to 80% [146]. Thus, strategic exploitation of genebank germplasm for novel alleles is crucial for the development of lodging resistant cultivars. Several HTP methods using sensors such as ultrasonic sensors, LiDAR or RGB cameras can be used to measure plant height in the greenhouse and field [98]. However, the method using a combination of LiDAR and RGB camera mounted on a ground- or aerial based vehicle appeared more feasible with a similarly high level of accuracy [147]. Using this method, plant height can be modelled and estimated by the principles of the structure from motion photogrammetry, where the difference between digital terrain model (DTM) and digital surface model (DSM) is the average height of plants within the plots [99]. Quantitative measurement of lodging can be derived from the differences between DSM before and after lodging events, which has been demonstrated in barley [131], wheat [132], and rice [133].

3.2. Inflorescence and Fruit

Inflorescence and fruit are important and distinctive botanical features of crops used to identify and classify genebank accessions. In physiological breeding, highly heritable traits in cereals such as spike length, spike weight, and floret number per spike are indicators of agronomic values, yield, and adaptation for selection schemes [146]. These traits can be quantitatively measured on large-scale seed regeneration trials by using cost-effective HTP technology (Table 1). For instance, Grillo et al. [148] developed a method to differentiate wheat landraces by glume size, shape, color, and texture using a color scanner. Likewise, Makanza et al. [118] designed a simple low-cost RGB imaging method to quantitatively measure seed size, number, and weight of intact maize cobs in the field. Most recently, Genaev et al. [113] described a simple RGB imaging setup which can precisely quantify morphological features such as spike shape and awnedness of the wheat spike. This work suggests that the deployment of HTP methods can help curators digitally characterize a wide range of traits related to the inflorescence and fruit, and once incorporated into genebank databases, readily provide this quantitative data for subsequent genetic analysis and breeding purposes by end-users.

3.3. Seed Characteristics

Seed traits such as shape, size, and coat color are crucial criteria for determining commodity market values and are highly controlled by genetics. Genebanks routinely characterize seeds based on general morphology and use the data for both in-house quality assurance and end-user purposes. Currently, most genebanks manually collect this data following seed regeneration cycles based on visual assessment of traits, an approach that can be subjective and potentially lead to inaccurate results. Image-based phenotyping methods using RGB, multispectral, and hyperspectral cameras could be a cost-effective and accurate substitute for manual phenotyping since shape, size, and coat color are easily reconstructed and analyzed using reflectance spectra from the seed surface, and are known to be related to chemical properties (Table 1) [149]. These HTP tools have been applied for seed quality, purity, viability, vigor testing, and variety identification on various crop species [150,151]. Potentially, this cost-effective HTP technology can be used to develop seed descriptor states for crop species [120,152] and as routine methods for managing genebank accessions as they are included into the collection from new acquisitions or seed regeneration events to avoid physical contamination and maintain genetic integrity [62], as well as genomic selection for seed traits [153].

3.4. Phenology

Understanding the timing of key physiological growth stages such as germination, flowering, and their variations is critical for crop production and breeding of new high yielding and environmentally adaptive varieties. Therefore, the documentation of crop phenological traits such as germination, flowering, and maturity are routinely recorded during genebank seed regeneration cycles. Research has shown that image-based phenotyping can be used to effectively measure these qualitative traits as a replacement to conventionally visual-based methods. For instance, HTP technology has been used for phenotype emergence [123,124], heading, and flowering [43,129] of various crop species (Table 1). This also suggests that these trait data can be systematically and simultaneously captured together with other traits by using HTP technology, reducing the cost and increasing the opportunity to explore the genetic potential of individual accessions.

3.5. Physiological and Agronomic Traits

Most genebanks choose to skip the collection of physiological and agronomic traits (known as evaluation data) from their standard curatorial procedures due to either funding shortage or the labor intensity required. However, this information together with genebank passport data is critical for prioritizing and enhancing the utilization of valuable germplasm for the selection of parents used for breeding [35,154]. Core collections can be generated using phenotypic data of useful agronomic traits [155]. A plethora of reports and publications from multiple international research groups have indicated that specially designed HTP platforms can comprehensively capture multiple trait data simultaneously that can be subsequently exploited not only by curators but also by plant scientists and breeders (Table 1).
This is particularly helpful when dissecting the genetic basis of polygenic traits such as grain yield or adaptive traits. For instance, grain yield is a critically important trait for selection in physiological breeding and can be effectively captured along with other descriptive traits using HTP technology during standard curatorial procedures at genebanks. However, grain yield is a genetically complex trait that can only be improved by simultaneously enhancing other secondary morphological and physiological traits such as plant architecture, lodging resistance, photosynthetic capacity, canopy temperature, and harvest index. This approach has been proposed for major agricultural crop species such as wheat [86,156], rice [157], and pulses [158]. Therefore, the use of HTP technology has a distinctive advantage over the conventional manual collection method, where the former can capture multiple secondary trait data quantitatively at the same time. This will reduce time, labor, and phenotyping cost with the benefit of a comprehensive data set, fully describing crop growth and yield, which is critically valuable to breeding programs. Distinctive secondary traits can also be directly used to breed for adaptation or indirectly in forward genetics for molecular cloning and gene identification. For example, stay green is an adaptive trait that provides better drought tolerance and nitrogen use efficiency in crops [56,159]. Research has shown that stay-green is a part of the drought adaptation mechanism that increases yield stability and lodging resistance in sorghum and other cereals, where it can lead to prolonged grain filling duration and improve yield [146,160]. Interestingly, other reports show that canopy temperature (CT)—an indicator of evaporative cooling from the canopy surface and an adaptive trait for high yielding and drought tolerance—is associated with stay green and deeper roots [161]. Thus, a HTP approach using a combination of sensors can capture stay green and CT traits together with other traits such as NDVI, height, biomass, and ground cover, as well as being used for selection in breeding programs [162,163].

4. Challenges

4.1. Lack of Resources

Despite the enormous potential to phenotype and characterize genebank germplasm to enhance genetic gain in plant breeding, there are several constraints that genebanks must fully address before being able to move forward. The first and perhaps the biggest challenge is the availability of resources for a long-term phenotyping scheme [7]. Although HTP phenotyping of genebank germplasm will provide valuable information for end-users, the associated cost for purchasing, establishing, and operating of sensors, phenotyping platforms, analysis, validation, and making available phenotypic data in a searchable online platform, respectively, is not a trivial task, and might not be affordable by every genebank [164,165]. Hidden costs such as equipment and database maintenance, software licensing, and upgrades need to be considered. Therefore, genebank managers need to carefully consider the balance between investment, labor cost, and achievement of goals before initiating HTP projects. For instance, low-cost simple HTP tools such as PhenoBox [166] can be developed for effective phenotyping of seed regeneration in the greenhouse without the need for complicated and costly automated phenotyping platforms reported by Nguyen et al. [41,42]. More importantly, in contrast to short-term research projects, genebanks are long-term investments with large numbers of accessions that require well planned, consistent phenotyping programs to be in place. Adequate planning and resources must be made available for effective phenotyping to be undertaken over the long-term if research and breeding programs are to achieve the increased plant production required in the future.

4.2. Technical Difficulties in Data Management and Analysis

Data capture, standardization, quality assurance, and analysis are technical challenges related to genebank phenotyping. HTP technologies generate a large volume of ‘big data’ in a short period of time using standardized protocols. However, a high level of infrastructure investment and a multidisciplinary approach for the appropriate storage, back up, data management, and analysis is required [167,168]. These data must be thoroughly validated before they can be used. In contrast to genomic data, plant phenotypes are non-constant, plastic, and change over time, as they are the results of instantaneous interactions between genotypes and the environments [169].
Furthermore, phenotypic data of field seed regenerations, mainly collected by passive sensors and cameras, are highly influenced by spatial and temporal climatic conditions and must be processed through sophisticated computational algorithms before the data can be made readily available for genebanks scientists [26]. Therefore, if data collection is not standardized for unpredictable weather and changes in agronomical practices, over the years data analysis will become difficult due to the disparity between different data sets, rendering the HTP efforts useless [23]. To cope with fluctuating climatic conditions, Xu [170] introduced the strategic ‘envirotyping’ approach, where local environmental data such as soil, weather, biotic factors, and crop management practices are documented as metadata together with plant phenotypic data.
All data must be integrated into a well-structured and publicly searchable database for end-users [171]. For instance, the Genebank Information System (GBIS) of the Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Gatersleben, Germany, currently houses approximately 151,000 crop accessions and is comprehensively managed across passport data, seed/line management, taxonomy, phenotypic characterization, and evaluation data [172]. To ensure phenotypic data generated from HTP are fully described and annotated, the plant phenotyping community has recommended a convention on the minimum information about plant phenotyping experiments (MIAPPE), where all experimental conditions are well described and published together with phenotypic data [173]. Wilkinson et al. [174] introduced the FAIR principles (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability) for the management of scholarly data, where their application will enhance the handling, sharing, reuse, and interpretation of data and metadata. In addition to passport and phenotypic data, images demonstrating morphological features, which are not easily analyzed and represented by numerical data, should be included [175]. Clearly, the systematic collection of phenotype and metadata and its stewardship will assist genebank scientists to fully describe the datasets and conditions where seed regenerations are conducted and enable the interpretation of the phenotypic plasticity in statistical models.

4.3. Users’ Awareness

Finally, the communication of genebank data sets to the research and breeding community is critical for increasing the successful utilization of genebank germplasm. Currently, only around 10% of genebank germplasm is used in plant breeding due to a range of technical reasons including lack of good quality phenotype and genotype data on the germplasm, as well as accession’s low level of adaptation to changing environments and genetic drift [11]. Although accurate phenotypic data are valuable to plant breeders to identify outstanding performers as potential parents, phenotyping is still the most expensive part of any breeding programs [176]. Breeders are often reluctant to take risks screening a large amount of diverse genebank germplasm without any certainty of their genetic potential for beneficial agronomic traits due to the cost and significant challenge for them to identify valuable germplasm or novel alleles from a ‘sea of seeds’ [177]. In this context, readily available phenotypic and genomic data that enriches genebank passport data will enhance the utilization and overall value of germplasm stored in genebanks.

5. Future Perspectives

5.1. Systematic HTP Phenotyping of Routine Genebank Seed Regenerations

Despite the challenges posed by the deployment of sensors and image-based HTP protocols, systematic collection of data from genebank seed regeneration cycles can effectively derive multiple trait data for downstream research. One of the advanced features of HTP is that multiple sensors can be deployed at the same time to simultaneously and non-destructively capture many independent observations that will allow for more targeted prioritization of accessions from large genetic resources collections for downstream studies. Targeted beneficial endophenotypes of individual genebank accessions can be directly used for the low-cost phenomic selection in breeding process or prioritize germplasm for higher value in the selection of crossing parents [88]. A proposed strategic phenomic approach for the collection of multiple trait data, management of genebank collections, and increasing utilization of data and seed by end users through the adoption of HTP technologies is shown in Figure 1.
Routine seed regeneration protocols of genebanks are often conducted in small, unreplicated plots or even single rows in the field or pots in greenhouses. Seed regeneration blocks should be replicated with a reasonable number of individuals whenever possible to facilitate statistical analysis and ensure sufficient number of seeds are used to maintain the genetic diversity and integrity of accessions (Figure 1) [178,179]. A large amount of morphological, agronomic, physiological (Table 1), and environmental data [170] can simultaneously be collected from routine seed regeneration cycles over subsequent years using HTP (Figure 1). Even though these phenotypic data are highly incomplete [23], meaningful inferences can still be achieved using appropriate analysis methods, such as identifying novel alleles [25]. Measurement of grain yield from small seed regeneration plots is generally not meaningful and is sometimes impractical to measure when thousands of lines are being regenerated in a single sowing event [30]. A practical and cost-effective phenotyping approach could be used to measure secondary correlated traits such as early vigor, height, canopy properties, and biomass during the growth phase which are components contributing to grain yield. Moreover, these phenotypic data can be instantly used in conjunction with genetic data generated by advanced genotyping technologies such as diversity array technology combined with next generation sequencing (DArT-Seq) and appropriate data quenching for direct phenomic and genomic selection from landrace accessions (Figure 1) [180,181,182].
This strategic phenomic approach has been deploying at genebanks elsewhere. For example, the Australian grains genebank (AGG), Horsham, Victoria was established in 2014 and currently houses approximately 195,000 accessions of 918 crop species such as wheat, barley, canola, field pea, chickpea, lentil, sorghum, maize, cowpea, mungbean, and millets. The number of accessions has increased by around 2750 per annum (Figure 2) [9]. Annually, AGG regenerates more than 3500 accessions of genetically diverse crop species and wild relatives in the field and greenhouse, subject to viability, quantity in stock and user demand (Figure 2)[9]. This routine activity requires large inputs of labor and resources costing in excess of A$500,000 per annum. Due to the large number of accessions being regenerated annually, using conventional phenotyping methods to obtain a complete phenotypic data set is not possible. Several field HTP platforms can acquire multiple crop traits such as plant height, biomass, leaf area index, and canopy temperature across thousands of seed regeneration plots at the same time [54,99,136]. The AGG is currently applying different HTP platforms such as automated phenotyping of Plant Phenomics Victoria, Horsham [41,42], laboratory-based phenotyping of spikes and airborne platforms (Figure 2) to capture more useful morphological, agronomic, and physiological traits from seed regeneration cycles. Once validated and analyzed, these data will be made publicly available with passport data which will help end-users prioritize higher value germplasm for targeting traits in subsequent studies (Figure 1).

5.2. A Combination of Genebanks’ Data Mining Approaches

To enhance value and utilization of germplasm, it is crucial that traits are identified and linked with genebank accessions (Figure 1). Several methods have been proposed for mining genebank data such as using published data sources and users’ feedback, core and mini core collections. phenotyping and genotyping approaches [15]. Overall, these methods aim to identify genebank accessions containing agronomic traits of interest. Core collections can be constructed by using phenotypic (Figure 1) [88,183], genomic [13], and geographical information of accessions for certain crop traits. A variety of software packages are available to develop core collections solely using phenotypic traits, for instance, Chung et al. [184] analyzed 11 quantitative and 28 qualitative phenotypic traits from 10,368 characterized rice accessions and derived a core collection of 107 entries by using PowerCore software. Similarly, Dutta et al. [185] constructed a core set of 2,208 accessions from 22,469 accessions of wheat and its wild relatives used 34 highly heritable phenotypic traits.
Accessions can also be grouped based on the geographical information data as specified in the focused identification of germplasm strategies approach (FIGS) [186,187]. The underlying principle of the FIGS approach is that crops will likely evolve under environmental selection pressures and develop their adaptation in response to extreme climatic conditions. Thus, the method uses detailed eco-geographical location and weather conditions where accessions were collected to precisely predict their adaptive traits to abiotic and biotic conditions. The FIGS approach has been successfully used to identify several core sets such wheat stem rust [188], drought in faba bean [187], powdery mildew in wheat [189], and Russian wheat aphids [190]. Using these data mining approaches will narrow down the number of accessions for further analysis while the allelic variance is still well maintained in the subsets.
Several approaches can also be used in sequence to increase the chance of identifying targeted accessions as reported by Haupt and Schmid [191] where two core collections of 183 and 366 soybean accessions were chosen from the original collection of more than 17,000 accessions by using a combination of FIGS approach and SNP genotypic markers. Given the advanced features of HTP, capturing multiple traits nondestructively at the same time, core collections can be easily developed and accessions containing promising traits of interest will be chosen for further studies.

5.3. A Collaborative Network for Data Collection, Analyzing and Sharing

To improve HTP practices, genebanks should work closely with universities, research institutes and industries to standardize seed regeneration procedures, phenotyping protocols, and calibration of sensors so that the resulting phenotypic data are comparable across genebanks and able to be fully exploited by end-users. Numerous initiatives have been implemented at the national and international scale, which aim to bring academia and industry together to address common phenotyping questions and integrate the plant phenotyping community (Figure 1) [171]. For instance, world-class plant phenotyping infrastructures have been established in Australia to enhance the capability, capacity, and scientific rigor in support of national plant phenomics studies and applications. These include the Australian plant phenotyping facility with three nodes located at the University of Adelaide, the Australian National University, and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra, respectively. Moreover, the Plant Phenomics Victoria is home to two nodes located in Horsham and Bundoora, Victoria (Figure 1). At the global scale, the International Plant Phenotyping Network [171] is an organization representing plant phenotyping centers, that formulates multidisciplinary working groups and enables the communication between stakeholders through conferences and training workshops so that up to date information about new HTP infrastructures and methodologies for various crop phenotypes can be effectively shared (Figure 1). This networking collaboration is essential to foster the advancement in plant phenotyping technologies including affordable phenotyping, sensors, and platforms, targeting traits and data analysis pipelines and data management.
To make valuable information pertaining to germplasm available for global users, a cooperative platform for data collection, analysis and sharing is urgently required. Several international initiatives such as DivSeek, breeding API, research data alliance (RDA), and global open data for agriculture (GODAN) have been developed, all of which have aimed to facilitate the integration and sharing of evaluation and characterization data so as to improve the value and utilization of germplasm [192]. For instance, the DivSeek international network is a global, community-driven initiative that facilitates the cooperation and interactions among its members through working groups [17]. Genebanks, phenotyping scientists, and breeders can develop and share methodologies, tools, and best practice phenotyping technologies to evaluate genetic resources, which improve the generation, integration, and sharing of phenotypic data [193]. Moreover, the introduction of the global information platforms such as the global portal on crop genetic resources (GeneSys-PGR) has enabled breeders and genebank users to use free online search engines to explore and request germplasm accessions conserved in genebanks worldwide [177]. The global information system is an international portal that links all current plant genetic resources systems by using unique digital object identifiers (DOIs) for individual accessions [192]. By using DOIs and linkage through these portals, invaluable phenotypic evaluation and characterization of germplasm can be effectively shared with the global user network.
Individual institutions can setup different collaboration protocols for sharing and exchanging phenotypic and genotypic data (Figure 1) [172]. For example, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), El Batán, State of Mexico, Mexico distributes seed all over the world and receive data in return from experimental trials that provide valuable information to assess genotype-by-environment interaction [194]. A more similar stringent protocol can be introduced to enforce the current clause in the standard material transfer agreement of the seed distribution of any genebanks, where the end-users are obliged to give back basic phenotypic data of genetic resources which they have used such as trial location, phenology, biomass, and grain yield. This information would clearly enrich the genebanks’ databases and the GeneSys-PGR, which can be used as reference guides by end-users for future use. However, phenotypic and genotypic data should be linked and shared with other national and international databases of plant genetic resources through the use of DOIs and the global portals discussed above.
Although genebank scientists make use of invaluable knowledge and techniques from other research disciplines such as plant physiologist, breeders, agronomists, seed physiologists, and computer scientists, their independent translational studies are indispensable to fully utilize HTP technology to phenotype genebanks’ accessions [34]. For instance, HTP methods can theoretically be applied to quantitatively analyze the 3D canopy structure of wheat by multi-view stereo and structure from motion algorithms [50]. This protocol is not yet ready for large-scale phenotyping of genebanks accessions as translational research must be conducted by genebanks to optimize the existing protocol and determine if its throughput is applicable for large-scale phenotyping of various crop species. Similarly, more studies should be dedicated to verifying and developing feasible seed testing methods by using multi- and hyper-spectral imagery for handling genebank accessions of various crop species [62].

6. Conclusions

The application of HTP technology for large-scale phenotypic characterization and validation of genebank germplasm is essential if they are to fulfill their biorepository role (i.e., in the preservation and support of further experimentation and plant breeding) [195]. With a comprehensive phenomics approach combining pedigree, genomic, and phenotyping data [17], the true value of genebank genetic resources is evident. Therefore, they should more strategically and efficiently utilized by breeding programs that should double our current rate of genetic gain to feed the growing world population under the changing conditions expected into the future.

Author Contributions

G.N.N. conceived the topic and wrote the manuscript. S.L.N. provided critical comments, edits, and acquired the funding. Both authors contributed to editing, revision and approval of the submitted manuscript. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Grains Research and Development Corporation, grant number 9176106 to S.L.N., through the Australian Grains Genebank project—Phase 3, 2017-2022.

Acknowledgments

Authors wish to thank Dr. Lance Maphosa for his critical reading and comments on the manuscript. We thank Christine Best, Katherine Dunsford and Susan Robson for assistance in taking phenotyping photos in the laboratory and the field.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ray, D.K.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Lesk, C.; Rowhani, P.; Ramankutty, N. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 2016, 529, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Legrève, A.; Duveiller, E. Prevailing potential diseases and pest epidemics under a changing climate. In Climate Change and Crop Production; Reynolds, M.P., Ed.; CABI Press: Oxfordshire, UK, 2010; Volume 13, pp. 50–70. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tanksley, S.D.; McCouch, S.R. Seed banks and molecular maps: Unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science 1997, 277, 1063–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. De Carvalho, M.A.P.; Bebeli, P.J.; Bettencourt, E.; Costa, G.; Dias, S.; Dos Santos, T.M.; Slaski, J.J. Cereal landraces genetic resources in worldwide GeneBanks. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 177–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Roa, C.; Hamilton, R.S.; Wenzl, P.; Powell, W. Plant genetic resources: Needs, rights, and opportunities. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 633–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. González, M.Y.; Weise, S.; Zhao, Y.; Philipp, N.; Arend, D.; Börner, A.; Oppermann, M.; Graner, A.; Reif, J.C.; Schulthess, A.W. Unbalanced historical phenotypic data from seed regeneration of a barley ex situ collection. Sci. Data 2018, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Gotor, E.; Alercia, A.; Rao, V.R.; Watts, J.; Caracciolo, F. The scientific information activity of Bioversity International: The descriptor lists. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2008, 55, 757–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Norton, S.L.; Khoury, C.K.; Sosa, C.C.; Castañeda-Álvarez, N.P.; Achicanoy, H.A.; Sotelo, S. Priorities for enhancing the ex situ conservation and use of Australian crop wild relatives. Aust. J. Bot. 2017, 65, 638–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. FAO. The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  11. Tadesse, W.; Sanchez-Garcia, M.; Assefa, S.G.; Amri, A.; Bishaw, Z.; Ogbonnaya, F.C.; Baum, M. Genetic gains in wheat breeding and its role in feeding the world. CBGG 2019, 1, e190005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Li, H.; Rasheed, A.; Hickey, L.T.; He, Z. Fast-forwarding genetic gain. Trends Plant Sci. 2018, 23, 184–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Wambugu, P.W.; Ndjiondjop, M.-N.; Henry, R.J. Role of genomics in promoting the utilization of plant genetic resources in genebanks. Brief. Funct. Genom. 2018, 17, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Díez, M.J.; De la Rosa, L.; Martín, I.; Guasch, L.; Cartea, M.E.; Mallor, C.; Casals, J.; Simó, J.; Rivera, A.; Anastasio, G.; et al. Plant genebanks: Present situation and proposals for their improvement. the case of the Spanish network. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Anglin, N.L.; Amri, A.; Kehel, Z.; Ellis, D. A case of need: Linking traits to genebank accessions. Biopreservation Biobanking 2018, 16, 337–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Finkers, R.; Chibon, P.-Y.; Van Treuren, R.; Visser, R.; Van Hintum, T. Genebanks and genomics: How to interconnect data from both communities? Plant Genet. Resour. 2014, 13, 90–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. McCouch, S.; Baute, G.J.; Bradeen, J.; Bramel, P.; Bretting, P.K.; Buckler, E.; Burke, J.M.; Charest, D.; Cloutier, S.; Cole, G.; et al. Feeding the future. Nature 2013, 499, 23–24. Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/499023a#supplementary-information (accessed on 24 April 2020). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. McCouch, S.R.; McNally, K.L.; Wang, W.; Sackville, H.R. Genomics of gene banks: A case study in rice. Am. J. Bot. 2012, 99, 407–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Yu, X.; Li, X.; Guo, T.; Zhu, C.; Wu, Y.; Mitchell, S.E.; Roozeboom, K.L.; Wang, D.; Wang, M.L.; Pederson, G.A.; et al. Genomic prediction contributing to a promising global strategy to turbocharge gene banks. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kilian, B.; Graner, A. NGS technologies for analyzing germplasm diversity in genebanks. Brief. Funct. Genom. 2012, 11, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Philipp, N.; Weise, S.; Oppermann, M.; Börner, A.; Graner, A.; Keilwagen, J.; Kilian, B.; Zhao, Y.; Reif, J.C.; Schulthess, A.W.; et al. Leveraging the use of historical data gathered during seed regeneration of an ex-situ genebank collection of wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Furbank, R.T.; Tester, M. Phenomics—Technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16, 635–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Krajewski, P.; Chen, D.; Ćwiek, H.; Van Dijk, A.D.J.; Fiorani, F.; Kersey, P.; Klukas, C.; Lange, M.; Markiewicz, A.; Nap, J.P.; et al. Towards recommendations for metadata and data handling in plant phenotyping. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 5417–5427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. González, M.Y.; Philipp, N.; Schulthess, A.W.; Weise, S.; Zhao, Y.; Börner, A.; Oppermann, M.; Graner, A.; Reif, J.C. Unlocking historical phenotypic data from an ex situ collection to enhance the informed utilization of genetic resources of barley (Hordeum sp.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2018, 131, 2009–2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Keilwagen, J.; Kilian, B.; Özkan, H.; Babben, S.; Perovic, D.; Mayer, K.F.X.; Walther, A.; Poskar, C.H.; Ordon, F.; Eversole, K.; et al. Separating the wheat from the chaff—A strategy to utilize plant genetic resources from ex situ genebanks. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 5231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Araus, J.L.; Cairns, J.E. Field high-throughput phenotyping: The new crop breeding frontier. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Araus, J.L.; Kefauver, S.C. Breeding to adapt agriculture to climate change: Affordable phenotyping solutions. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2018, 45, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. White, J.W.; Andrade-Sanchez, P.; Gore, M.A.; Bronson, K.F.; Coffelt, T.A.; Conley, M.M.; Feldmann, K.A.; French, A.N.; Heun, J.T.; Hunsaker, D.J.; et al. Field-based phenomics for plant genetics research. Field Crops Res. 2012, 133, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rutkoski, J.; Poland, J.; Mondal, S.; Autrique, E.; Pérez, L.G.; Crossa, J.; Reynolds, M.; Singh, R. Canopy temperature and vegetation indices from high-throughput phenotyping improve accuracy of pedigree and genomic selection for grain yield in wheat. G3 Genes Genom. Genet. 2016, 6, 2799–2808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Krause, M.R.; González-Pérez, L.; Crossa, J.; Pérez-Rodríguez, P.; Montesinos-López, O.; Singh, R.P.; Dreisigacker, S.; Poland, J.; Rutkoski, J.; Sorrells, M.; et al. Hyperspectral reflectance-derived relationship matrices for genomic prediction of grain yield in wheat. G3 Genes Genom. Genet. 2019, 9, 1231–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Milner, S.G.; Jost, M.; Taketa, S.; Mazón, E.R.; Himmelbach, A.; Oppermann, M.; Weise, S.; Knüpffer, H.; Basterrechea, M.; König, P.; et al. Genebank genomics highlights the diversity of a global barley collection. Nat. Genet. 2019, 51, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Van, K.; Kim, D.H.; Shin, J.H.; Lee, S.-H. Genomics of plant genetic resources: Past, present and future. Plant Genet. Resour. 2011, 9, 155–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mir, R.R.; Reynolds, M.; Pinto, F.; Khan, M.A.; Bhat, M.A. High-throughput phenotyping for crop improvement in the genomics era. Plant Sci. 2019, 282, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Reynolds, M.; Borrell, A.; Braun, H.; Edmeades, G.; Flavell, R.; Gwyn, J.; Jordan, D.; Pixley, K.; Rebetzke, G. Translational research for climate resilient, higher yielding crops. CBGG 2019, 1, e190016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Reynolds, M.; Tattaris, M.; Cossani, C.M.; Ellis, M.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K.; Pierre, C.S. Exploring genetic resources to increase adaptation of wheat to climate change. In Advances in Wheat Genetics: From Genome to Field; Ogihara, Y., Takumi, S., Handa, H., Eds.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2015; pp. 355–368. [Google Scholar]
  36. Tardieu, F.; Cabrera-Bosquet, L.; Pridmore, T.; Bennett, M. Plant phenomics, from sensors to knowledge. Curr. Biol. 2017, 27, R770–R783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Fahlgren, N.; Gehan, M.A.; Baxter, I. Lights, camera, action: High-throughput plant phenotyping is ready for a close-up. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2015, 24, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Homolová, L.; Malenovský, Z.; Clevers, J.G.P.W.; García-Santos, G.; Schaepman, M.E. Review of optical-based remote sensing for plant trait mapping. Ecol. Complex. 2013, 15, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Araus, J.L.; Kefauver, S.C.; Zaman-Allah, M.; Olsen, M.S.; Cairns, J.E. Translating high-throughput phenotyping into genetic gain. Trends Plant Sci. 2018, 23, 451–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Rebetzke, G.J.; Jimenez-Berni, J.; Fischer, R.A.; Deery, D.M.; Smith, D.J. Review: High-throughput phenotyping to enhance the use of crop genetic resources. Plant Sci. 2019, 282, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nguyen, G.N.; Maharjan, P.; Maphosa, L.; Vakani, J.; Thoday-Kennedy, E.; Kant, S. A robust automated image-based phenotyping method for rapid vegetative screening of wheat germplasm for nitrogen use efficiency. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Nguyen, G.N.; Norton, S.L.; Rosewarne, G.M.; James, L.E.; Slater, A.T. Automated phenotyping for early vigour of field pea seedlings in controlled environment by colour imaging technology. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0207788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Sadeghi-Tehran, P.; Sabermanesh, K.; Virlet, N.; Hawkesford, M.J. Automated method to determine two critical growth stages of wheat: Heading and flowering. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Andrade-Sanchez, P.; Gore, M.A.; Heun, J.T.; Thorp, K.R.; Carmo-Silva, A.E.; French, A.N.; Salvucci, M.E.; White, J.W. Development and evaluation of a field-based high-throughput phenotyping platform. Funct. Plant Biol. 2013, 41, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Qiu, Q.; Sun, N.; Bai, H.; Wang, N.; Fan, Z.; Wang, Y.; Meng, Z.; Li, B.; Cong, Y. Field-based high-throughput phenotyping for maize plant using 3D LiDAR point cloud generated with a “Phenomobile”. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Chapman, S.C.; Merz, T.; Chan, A.; Jackway, P.; Hrabar, S.; Dreccer, M.F.; Holland, E.; Zheng, B.; Ling, T.J.; Jimenez-Berni, J.; et al. Pheno-Copter: A low-altitude, autonomous remote-sensing robotic helicopter for high-throughput field-based phenotyping. Agronomy 2014, 4, 279–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Hu, P.; Chapman, S.C.; Wang, X.; Potgieter, A.; Duan, T.; Jordan, D.; Guo, Y.; Zheng, B. Estimation of plant height using a high throughput phenotyping platform based on unmanned aerial vehicle and self-calibration: Example for sorghum breeding. Eur. J. Agron. 2018, 95, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Silva-Perez, V.; Molero, G.; Serbin, S.P.; Condon, A.G.; Reynolds, M.P.; Furbank, R.T.; Evans, J.R. Hyperspectral reflectance as a tool to measure biochemical and physiological traits in wheat. J. Exp. Bot. 2017, 69, 483–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Dreccer, M.F.; Barnes, L.R.; Meder, R. Quantitative dynamics of stem water soluble carbohydrates in wheat can be monitored in the field using hyperspectral reflectance. Field Crops Res. 2014, 159, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Duan, T.; Chapman, S.C.; Holland, E.; Rebetzke, G.J.; Guo, Y.; Zheng, B. Dynamic quantification of canopy structure to characterize early plant vigour in wheat genotypes. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 67, 4523–4534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Khan, Z.; Chopin, J.; Cai, J.; Eichi, V.-R.; Haefele, S.; Miklavcic, S. Quantitative estimation of wheat phenotyping traits using ground and aerial imagery. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Hassan, M.; Yang, M.; Rasheed, A.; Jin, X.; Xia, X.; Xiao, Y.; He, Z. Time-series multispectral indices from unmanned aerial vehicle imagery reveal senescence rate in bread wheat. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Shorten, P.R.; Leath, S.R.; Schmidt, J.; Ghamkhar, K. Predicting the quality of ryegrass using hyperspectral imaging. Plant Methods 2019, 15, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Deery, D.M.; Rebetzke, G.J.; Jimenez-Berni, J.A.; Bovill, W.D.; James, R.A.; Condon, A.G.; Furbank, R.T.; Chapman, S.C.; Fischer, R.A. Evaluation of the phenotypic repeatability of canopy temperature in wheat using continuous-terrestrial and airborne measurements. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Jimenez-Berni, J.A.; Deery, D.M.; Rozas-Larraondo, P.; Condon, A.G.; Rebetzke, G.J.; James, R.A.; Bovill, W.D.; Furbank, R.T.; Sirault, X.R.R. High throughput determination of plant height, ground cover, and above-ground biomass in wheat with LiDAR. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Nguyen, G.N.; Kant, S. Improving nitrogen use efficiency in plants: Effective phenotyping in conjunction with agronomic and genetic approaches. Funct. Plant Biol. 2018, 45, 606–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Nguyen, G.N.; Panozzo, J.; Spangenberg, G.; Kant, S. Phenotyping approaches to evaluate nitrogen-use efficiency related traits of diverse wheat varieties under field conditions. Crop Pasture Sci. 2016, 67, 1139–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Guo, W.; Fukatsu, T.; Ninomiya, S. Automated characterization of flowering dynamics in rice using field-acquired time-series RGB images. Plant Methods 2015, 11, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Bendig, J.; Willkomm, M.; Tilly, N.; Gnyp, M.; Bennertz, S.; Qiang, C.; Miao, Y.; Lenz-Wiedemann, V.; Bareth, G. Very high resolution crop surface models (CSMs) from UAV-based stereo images for rice growth monitoring in Northeast China. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2013, 40, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Bendig, J.; Yu, K.; Aasen, H.; Bolten, A.; Bennertz, S.; Broscheit, J.; Gnyp, M.L.; Bareth, G. Combining UAV-based plant height from crop surface models, visible, and near infrared vegetation indices for biomass monitoring in barley. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2015, 39, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. LeMasurier, L.S.; Panozzo, J.F.; Walker, C.K. A digital image analysis method for assessment of lentil size traits. J. Food Eng. 2014, 128, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hansen, M.A.E.; Hay, F.R.; Carstensen, J.M. A virtual seed file: The use of multispectral image analysis in the management of genebank seed accessions. Plant Genet. Resour. 2015, 14, 238–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. McDonald, L.S.; Salisbury, P.A.; Ford, R.; Panozzo, J.F. Quantifying the colour loss of green field pea (Pisum sativum L.) due to bleaching. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0221523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Coupel-Ledru, A.; Pallas, B.; Delalande, M.; Boudon, F.; Carrié, E.; Martinez, S.; Regnard, J.-L.; Costes, E. Multi-scale high-throughput phenotyping of apple architectural and functional traits in orchard reveals genotypic variability under contrasted watering regimes. Hortic. Res. 2019, 6, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Patrick, A.; Li, C. High throughput phenotyping of blueberry bush morphological traits using unmanned aerial systems. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Ludovisi, R.; Tauro, F.; Salvati, R.; Khoury, S.; Mugnozza Scarascia, G.; Harfouche, A. UAV-based thermal imaging for high-throughput field phenotyping of black poplar response to drought. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Rist, F.; Gabriel, D.; Mack, J.; Steinhage, V.; Töpfer, R.; Herzog, K. Combination of an automated 3D field phenotyping workflow and predictive modelling for high-throughput and non-invasive phenotyping of grape bunches. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Gutiérrez, S.; Wendel, A.; Underwood, J. Spectral filter design based on in-field hyperspectral imaging and machine learning for mango ripeness estimation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 164, 104890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Xiong, J.; Liu, Z.; Chen, S.; Liu, B.; Zheng, Z.; Zhong, Z.; Yang, Z.; Peng, H. Visual detection of green mangoes by an unmanned aerial vehicle in orchards based on a deep learning method. Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 194, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mochida, K.; Koda, S.; Inoue, K.; Hirayama, T.; Tanaka, S.; Nishii, R.; Melgani, F. Computer vision-based phenotyping for improvement of plant productivity: A machine learning perspective. GigaScience 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Škrubej, U.; Rozman, Č.; Stajnko, D. Assessment of germination rate of the tomato seeds using image processing and machine learning. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2015, 80, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hasan, M.M.; Chopin, J.P.; Laga, H.; Miklavcic, S.J. Detection and analysis of wheat spikes using Convolutional Neural Networks. Plant Methods 2018, 14, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Sadeghi-Tehran, P.; Virlet, N.; Ampe, E.M.; Reyns, P.; Hawkesford, M.J. DeepCount: In-field automatic quantification of wheat spikes using simple linear iterative clustering and deep convolutional neural networks. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pantazi, X.E.; Moshou, D.; Alexandridis, T.; Whetton, R.L.; Mouazen, A.M. Wheat yield prediction using machine learning and advanced sensing techniques. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 121, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nagel, M.; Holstein, K.; Willner, E.; Börner, A. Machine learning links seed composition, glucosinolates and viability of oilseed rape after 31 years of long-term storage. Seed Sci. Res. 2018, 28, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Yang, G.; Liu, J.; Zhao, C.; Li, Z.; Huang, Y.; Yu, H.; Xu, B.; Yang, X.; Zhu, D.; Zhang, X.; et al. Unmanned aerial vehicle remote sensing for field-based crop phenotyping: Current status and perspectives. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Furbank, R.T.; Jimenez-Berni, J.A.; George-Jaeggli, B.; Potgieter, A.B.; Deery, D.M. Field crop phenomics: Enabling breeding for radiation use efficiency and biomass in cereal crops. New Phytol. 2019, 223, 1714–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Lobet, G.; Draye, X.; Périlleux, C. An online database for plant image analysis software tools. Plant Methods 2013, 9, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Brown, T.B.; Cheng, R.; Sirault, X.R.R.; Rungrat, T.; Murray, K.D.; Trtilek, M.; Furbank, R.T.; Badger, M.; Pogson, B.J.; Borevitz, J.O. TraitCapture: Genomic and environment modelling of plant phenomic data. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2014, 18, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Cobb, J.N.; DeClerck, G.; Greenberg, A.; Clark, R.; McCouch, S. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. FAO. Genebank Standards for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  82. Longin, C.F.H.; Reif, J.C. Redesigning the exploitation of wheat genetic resources. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19, 631–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Crossa, J.; Pérez-Rodríguez, P.; Cuevas, J.; Montesinos-López, O.; Jarquín, D.; De los Campos, G.; Burgueño, J.; González-Camacho, J.M.; Pérez-Elizalde, S.; Beyene, Y.; et al. Genomic selection in plant breeding: Methods, models, and perspectives. Trends Plant Sci. 2017, 22, 961–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wang, X.; Xu, Y.; Hu, Z.; Xu, C. Genomic selection methods for crop improvement: Current status and prospects. Crop J. 2018, 6, 330–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Jannink, J.L. Dynamics of long-term genomic selection. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2010, 42, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Reynolds, M.; Langridge, P. Physiological breeding. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2016, 31, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Rutkoski, J.; Singh, R.P.; Huerta-Espino, J.; Bhavani, S.; Poland, J.; Jannink, J.L.; Sorrells, M.E. Genetic gain from phenotypic and genomic selection for quantitative resistance to stem rust of wheat. Plant Genome 2015, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Rincent, R.; Charpentier, J.-P.; Faivre-Rampant, P.; Paux, E.; Le Gouis, J.; Bastien, C.; Segura, V. Phenomic selection is a low-cost and high-throughput method based on indirect predictions: Proof of concept on wheat and poplar. G3 Genes Genom. Genet. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Pimentel, D.; Wilson, C.; McCullum, C.; Huang, R.; Dwen, P.; Flack, J.; Tran, Q.; Saltman, T.; Cliff, B. Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity. BioScience 1997, 47, 747–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Van De Wouw, M.; Kik, C.; Van Hintum, T.; Van Treuren, R.; Visser, B. Genetic erosion in crops: Concept, research results and challenges. Plant Genet. Resour. 2010, 8, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Schoen, D.J.; Brown, A.H.D. The conservation of wild plant species in seed banks: Attention to both taxonomic coverage and population biology will improve the role of seed banks as conservation tools. BioScience 2001, 51, 960–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Solberg, S.O.; Yndgaard, F.; Palmè, A. Morphological and phenological consequences of ex situ conservation of natural populations of red clover (Trifolium pratense L.). Plant Genet. Resour. 2015, 15, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Tester, M.; Langridge, P. Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science 2010, 327, 818–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Boyle, R.D.; Corke, F.M.K.; Doonan, J.H. Automated estimation of tiller number in wheat by ribbon detection. Mach. Vis. Appl. 2016, 27, 637–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Yamamoto, K.; Guo, W.; Ninomiya, S. Node detection and internode length estimation of tomato seedlings based on image analysis and machine learning. Sensors 2016, 16, 1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Conn, A.; Pedmale, U.V.; Chory, J.; Stevens, C.F.; Navlakha, S. A statistical description of plant shoot architecture. Curr. Biol. 2017, 27, 2078–2088.e2073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Crowell, S.; Falcão, A.X.; Shah, A.; Wilson, Z.; Greenberg, A.J.; McCouch, S.R. High-resolution inflorescence phenotyping using a novel image-analysis pipeline, PANorama. Plant Physiol. 2014, 165, 479–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Wang, X.; Singh, D.; Marla, S.; Morris, G.; Poland, J. Field-based high-throughput phenotyping of plant height in sorghum using different sensing technologies. Plant Methods 2018, 14, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Holman, F.; Riche, A.; Michalski, A.; Castle, M.; Wooster, M.; Hawkesford, M. High throughput field phenotyping of wheat plant height and growth rate in field plot trials using UAV based remote sensing. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Han, L.; Yang, G.; Dai, H.; Yang, H.; Xu, B.; Feng, H.; Li, Z.; Yang, X. Fuzzy clustering of maize plant-height patterns using time series of UAV remote-sensing images and variety traits. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Bendig, J.; Bolten, A.; Bareth, G. UAV-based imaging for multi-temporal, very high resolution crop surface models to monitor crop growth variability. Photogramm. Fernerkund. Geoinf. 2013, 2013, 551–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Larese, M.G.; Granitto, P.M. Finding local leaf vein patterns for legume characterization and classification. Mach. Vis. Appl. 2016, 27, 709–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Wang, Y.; Wen, W.; Wu, S.; Wang, C.; Yu, Z.; Guo, X.; Zhao, C. Maize plant phenotyping: Comparing 3D laser scanning, multi-view stereo reconstruction, and 3D digitizing estimates. Remote Sens. 2018, 11, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Brichet, N.; Fournier, C.; Turc, O.; Strauss, O.; Artzet, S.; Pradal, C.; Welcker, C.; Tardieu, F.; Cabrera-Bosquet, L. A robot-assisted imaging pipeline for tracking the growths of maize ear and silks in a high-throughput phenotyping platform. Plant Methods 2017, 13, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. AL-Tam, F.; Adam, H.; Anjos, A.d.; Lorieux, M.; Larmande, P.; Ghesquière, A.; Jouannic, S.; Shahbazkia, H.R. P-TRAP: A panicle trait phenotyping tool. BMC Plant Biol. 2013, 13, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Rebolledo, M.C.; Peña, A.L.; Duitama, J.; Cruz, D.F.; Dingkuhn, M.; Grenier, C.; Tohme, J. Combining image analysis, genome wide association studies and different field trials to reveal stable genetic regions related to panicle architecture and the number of spikelets per panicle in rice. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Xiong, X.; Duan, L.; Liu, L.; Tu, H.; Yang, P.; Wu, D.; Chen, G.; Xiong, L.; Yang, W.; Liu, Q. Panicle-SEG: A robust image segmentation method for rice panicles in the field based on deep learning and superpixel optimization. Plant Methods 2017, 13, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Lu, H.; Cao, Z.; Xiao, Y.; Fang, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Xian, K. Fine-grained maize tassel trait characterization with multi-view representations. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2015, 118, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Lu, H.; Cao, Z.; Xiao, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhu, Y. Region-based colour modelling for joint crop and maize tassel segmentation. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 147, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Boyle, R.; Corke, F.; Howarth, C. Image-based estimation of oat panicle development using local texture patterns. Funct. Plant Biol. 2015, 42, 433–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Song, Y.; Glasbey, C.; Horgan, G.; Polder, G.; Dieleman, J.; Van der Heijden, G. Automatic fruit recognition and counting from multiple images. Biosyst. Eng. 2014, 118, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Xiong, B.; Wang, B.; Xiong, S.; Lin, C.; Yuan, X. 3D morphological processing for wheat spike phenotypes using computed tomography images. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Genaev, M.A.; Komyshev, E.G.; Smirnov, N.V.; Kruchinina, Y.V.; Goncharov, N.P.; Afonnikov, D.A. Morphometry of the wheat spike by analyzing 2D images. Agronomy 2019, 9, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. McDonald, L.S.; Panozzo, J.F.; Salisbury, P.A.; Ford, R. Discriminant analysis of defective and non-defective field pea (Pisum sativum L.) into broad market grades based on digital image features. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Rolletschek, H.; Fuchs, J.; Friedel, S.; Börner, A.; Todt, H.; Jakob, P.M.; Borisjuk, L. A novel noninvasive procedure for high-throughput screening of major seed traits. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2015, 13, 188–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Tanabata, T.; Shibaya, T.; Hori, K.; Ebana, K.; Yano, M. SmartGrain: High-throughput phenotyping software for measuring seed shape through image analysis. Plant Physiol. 2012, 160, 1871–1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  117. Miller, N.D.; Haase, N.J.; Lee, J.; Kaeppler, S.M.; De Leon, N.; Spalding, E.P. A robust, high-throughput method for computing maize ear, cob, and kernel attributes automatically from images. Plant J. 2017, 89, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Makanza, R.; Zaman-Allah, M.; Cairns, J.E.; Eyre, J.; Burgueño, J.; Pacheco, Á.; Diepenbrock, C.; Magorokosho, C.; Tarekegne, A.; Olsen, M.; et al. High-throughput method for ear phenotyping and kernel weight estimation in maize using ear digital imaging. Plant Methods 2018, 14, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Martín-Gómez, J.J.; Rewicz, A.; Goriewa-Duba, K.; Wiwart, M.; Tocino, Á.; Cervantes, E. Morphological description and classification of wheat kernels based on geometric models. Agronomy 2019, 9, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Gentallan, R.P.; Altoveros, N.C.; Borromeo, T.H.; Endonela, L.E.; Hay, F.R.; Lalusin, A.G.; Reaño, C.E.; Yoshioka, Y. An objective method of shape descriptor state establishment using elliptic Fourier analysis (EFA). Plant Genet. Resour. 2019, 17, 480–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Jahnke, S.; Roussel, J.; Hombach, T.; Kochs, J.; Fischbach, A.; Huber, G.; Scharr, H. phenoSeeder-A robot system for automated handling and phenotyping of individual seeds. Plant Physiol. 2016, 172, 1358–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Clohessy, J.W.; Pauli, D.; Kreher, K.M.; Buckler, E.S.; Armstrong, P.R.; Wu, T.; Hoekenga, O.A.; Jannink, J.-L.; Sorrells, M.E.; Gore, M.A. A low-cost automated system for high-throughput phenotyping of single oat seeds. Plant Phenome J. 2018, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Wu, J.; Yang, G.; Yang, X.; Xu, B.; Han, L.; Zhu, Y. Automatic counting of in situ rice seedlings from UAV images based on a deep fully convolutional neural network. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Jiang, Y.; Li, C.; Paterson, A.H.; Robertson, J.S. DeepSeedling: Deep convolutional network and Kalman filter for plant seedling detection and counting in the field. Plant Methods 2019, 15, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Jin, X.; Liu, S.; Baret, F.; Hemerlé, M.; Comar, A. Estimates of plant density of wheat crops at emergence from very low altitude UAV imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 198, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Duan, T.; Zheng, B.; Guo, W.; Ninomiya, S.; Guo, Y.; Chapman, S.C. Comparison of ground cover estimates from experiment plots in cotton, sorghum and sugarcane based on images and ortho-mosaics captured by UAV. Funct. Plant Biol. 2017, 44, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Zhu, Y.; Cao, Z.; Lu, H.; Li, Y.; Xiao, Y. In-field automatic observation of wheat heading stage using computer vision. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 143, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Desai, S.V.; Balasubramanian, V.N.; Fukatsu, T.; Ninomiya, S.; Guo, W. Automatic estimation of heading date of paddy rice using deep learning. Plant Methods 2019, 15, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  129. Wu, G.; Miller, N.D.; De Leon, N.; Kaeppler, S.M.; Spalding, E.P. Predicting Zea mays flowering time, yield, and kernel dimensions by analyzing aerial images. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Liu, S.; Martre, P.; Buis, S.; Abichou, M.; Andrieu, B.; Baret, F. Estimation of plant and canopy architectural traits using the digital plant phenotyping platform. Plant Physiol. 2019, 181, 881–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Wilke, N.; Siegmann, B.; Klingbeil, L.; Burkart, A.; Kraska, T.; Muller, O.; Van Doorn, A.; Heinemann, S.; Rascher, U. Quantifying lodging percentage and lodging severity using a UAV-based canopy height model combined with an objective threshold approach. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Singh, D.; Wang, X.; Kumar, U.; Gao, L.; Noor, M.; Imtiaz, M.; Singh, R.P.; Poland, J. High-throughput phenotyping enabled genetic dissection of crop lodging in wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Zhao, X.; Yuan, Y.; Song, M.; Ding, Y.; Lin, F.; Liang, D.; Zhang, D. Use of unmanned aerial vehicle imagery and deep learning UNet to extract rice lodging. Sensors 2019, 19, 3859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Fu, P.; Meacham-Hensold, K.; Guan, K.; Bernacchi, C.J. Hyperspectral leaf reflectance as proxy for photosynthetic capacities: An ensemble approach based on multiple machine learning algorithms. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Yendrek, C.R.; Tomaz, T.; Montes, C.M.; Cao, Y.; Morse, A.M.; Brown, P.J.; McIntyre, L.M.; Leakey, A.D.B.; Ainsworth, E.A. High-throughput phenotyping of maize leaf physiological and biochemical traits using hyperspectral reflectance. Plant Physiol. 2017, 173, 614–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Zhang, L.; Niu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Han, W.; Li, G.; Tang, J.; Peng, X. Maize canopy temperature extracted from UAV thermal and RGB imagery and its application in water stress monitoring. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Sadras, V.O.; Mahadevan, M.; Zwer, P.K. Stay-green associates with low water soluble carbohydrates at flowering in oat. Field Crops Res. 2019, 230, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Blancon, J.; Dutartre, D.; Tixier, M.-H.; Weiss, M.; Comar, A.; Praud, S.; Baret, F. A High-throughput model-assisted method for phenotyping maize green leaf area index dynamics using unmanned aerial vehicle imagery. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Walter, J.D.C.; Edwards, J.; McDonald, G.; Kuchel, H. Estimating biomass and canopy height with LiDAR for field crop breeding. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Golzarian, M.R.; Frick, R.A.; Rajendran, K.; Berger, B.; Roy, S.; Tester, M.; Lun, D.S. Accurate inference of shoot biomass from high-throughput images of cereal plants. Plant Methods 2011, 7, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  141. Montesinos-López, O.A.; Montesinos-López, A.; Crossa, J.; De los Campos, G.; Alvarado, G.; Suchismita, M.; Rutkoski, J.; González-Pérez, L.; Burgueño, J. Predicting grain yield using canopy hyperspectral reflectance in wheat breeding data. Plant Methods 2017, 13, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Fernandez-Gallego, J.; Kefauver, S.; Gutiérrez, N.A.; Nieto-Taladriz, M.T.; Araus, J. Automatic Wheat Ear Counting In-Field Conditions: Simulation and Implication of Lower Resolution Images; Proc. SPIE, Remote Sensing for Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Hydrology XX, 107830M: Berlin, Germany, 2018; Volume 10783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Guo, W.; Zheng, B.; Potgieter, A.B.; Diot, J.; Watanabe, K.; Noshita, K.; Jordan, D.R.; Wang, X.; Watson, J.; Ninomiya, S.; et al. Aerial imagery analysis-quantifying appearance and number of sorghum heads for applications in breeding and agronomy. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Madec, S.; Jin, X.; Lu, H.; De Solan, B.; Liu, S.; Duyme, F.; Heritier, E.; Baret, F. Ear density estimation from high resolution RGB imagery using deep learning technique. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2019, 264, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Pérez-Harguindeguy, N.; Díaz, S.; Garnier, E.; Lavorel, S.; Poorter, H.; Jaureguiberry, P.; Bret-Harte, M.S.; Cornwell, W.K.; Craine, J.M.; Gurvich, D.E.; et al. New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 2013, 61, 167–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Reynolds, M.; Foulkes, M.J.; Slafer, G.A.; Berry, P.; Parry, M.A.J.; Snape, J.W.; Angus, W.J. Raising yield potential in wheat. J. Exp. Bot. 2009, 60, 1899–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  147. Yuan, W.; Li, J.; Bhatta, M.; Shi, Y.; Baenziger, P.; Ge, Y. Wheat height estimation using LiDAR in comparison to ultrasonic sensor and UAS. Sensors 2018, 18, 3731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  148. Grillo, O.; Blangiforti, S.; Venora, G. Wheat landraces identification through glumes image analysis. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017, 141, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Cervantes, E.; Martín, J.J.; Saadaoui, E. Updated methods for seed shape analysis. Scientifica 2016, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. ElMasry, G.; Mandour, N.; Al-Rejaie, S.; Belin, E.; Rousseau, D. Recent applications of multispectral imaging in seed phenotyping and quality monitoring—An overview. Sensors 2019, 19, 1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Feng, L.; Zhu, S.; Liu, F.; He, Y.; Bao, Y.; Zhang, C. Hyperspectral imaging for seed quality and safety inspection: A review. Plant Methods 2019, 15, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. Gentallan, R.P.; Altoveros, N.C.; Borromeo, T.H.; Endonela, L.E.; Hay, F.R.; Lalusin, A.G.; Reaño, C.E.; Yoshioka, Y. Systematic establishment of colour descriptor states through image-based phenotyping. Plant Genet. Resour. 2018, 17, 91–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Nielsen, N.H.; Jahoor, A.; Jensen, J.D.; Orabi, J.; Cericola, F.; Edriss, V.; Jensen, J. Genomic prediction of seed quality traits using advanced barley breeding lines. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0164494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Kumar, J.; Choudhary, A.K.; Gupta, D.S.; Kumar, S. Towards exploitation of adaptive traits for climate-resilient smart pulses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Van Hintum, T.J.; Brown, A.H.D.; Spillane, C. Core Collections of Plant Genetic Resources; International Plant Genetic Resources Institute: Rome, Italy, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  156. Reynolds, M.; Foulkes, J.; Furbank, R.; Griffiths, S.; King, J.; Murchie, E.; Parry, M.; Slafer, G. Achieving yield gains in wheat. Plant Cell Environ. 2012, 35, 1799–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Khush, G.S. Strategies for increasing the yield potential of cereals: Case of rice as an example. Plant Breed. 2013, 132, 433–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Shunmugam, A.S.K.; Kannan, U.; Jiang, Y.; Daba, K.A.; Gorim, L.Y. Physiology based approaches for breeding of next-generation food legumes. Plants 2018, 7, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  159. Borrell, A.K.; Mullet, J.E.; George-Jaeggli, B.; Van Oosterom, E.J.; Hammer, G.L.; Klein, P.E.; Jordan, D.R. Drought adaptation of stay-green sorghum is associated with canopy development, leaf anatomy, root growth, and water uptake. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 6251–6263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Kamal, N.M.; Gorafi, Y.S.A.; Abdelrahman, M.; Abdellatef, E.; Tsujimoto, H. Stay-green trait: A prospective approach for yield potential, and drought and heat stress adaptation in globally important cereals. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Kumari, M.; Pudake, R.N.; Singh, V.P.; Joshi, A.K. Association of staygreen trait with canopy temperature depression and yield traits under terminal heat stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Euphytica 2013, 190, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Rebetzke, G.J.; Jimenez-Berni, J.A.; Bovill, W.D.; Deery, D.M.; James, R.A. High-throughput phenotyping technologies allow accurate selection of stay-green. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 67, 4919–4924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  163. Li, X.; Ingvordsen, C.H.; Weiss, M.; Rebetzke, G.J.; Condon, A.G.; James, R.A.; Richards, R.A. Deeper roots associated with cooler canopies, higher normalized difference vegetation index, and greater yield in three wheat populations grown on stored soil water. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 4963–4974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Reynolds, D.; Baret, F.; Welcker, C.; Bostrom, A.; Ball, J.; Cellini, F.; Lorence, A.; Chawade, A.; Khafif, M.; Noshita, K.; et al. What is cost-efficient phenotyping? Optimizing costs for different scenarios. Plant Sci. 2019, 282, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  165. Roitsch, T.; Cabrera-Bosquet, L.; Fournier, A.; Ghamkhar, K.; Jiménez-Berni, J.; Pinto, F.; Ober, E.S. Review: New sensors and data-driven approaches—A path to next generation phenomics. Plant Sci. 2019, 282, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Czedik-Eysenberg, A.; Seitner, S.; Güldener, U.; Koemeda, S.; Jez, J.; Colombini, M.; Djamei, A. The ‘PhenoBox’, a flexible, automated, open-source plant phenotyping solution. New Phytol. 2018, 219, 808–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Coppens, F.; Wuyts, N.; Inzé, D.; Dhondt, S. Unlocking the potential of plant phenotyping data through integration and data-driven approaches. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 2017, 4, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Bolger, A.M.; Poorter, H.; Dumschott, K.; Bolger, M.E.; Arend, D.; Osorio, S.; Gundlach, H.; Mayer, K.F.X.; Lange, M.; Scholz, U.; et al. Computational aspects underlying genome to phenome analysis in plants. Plant J. 2019, 97, 182–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Poorter, H.; Fiorani, F.; Pieruschka, R.; Wojciechowski, T.; Van der Putten, W.H.; Kleyer, M.; Schurr, U.; Postma, J. Pampered inside, pestered outside? Differences and similarities between plants growing in controlled conditions and in the field. New Phytol. 2016, 212, 838–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Xu, Y. Envirotyping for deciphering environmental impacts on crop plants. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2016, 129, 653–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  171. Pieruschka, R.; Schurr, U. Plant phenotyping: Past, present, and future. Plant Phenomics 2019, 2019, 7507131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Oppermann, M.; Weise, S.; Dittmann, C.; Knüpffer, H. GBIS: The information system of the German genebank. Database 2015, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  173. Ćwiek-Kupczyńska, H.; Altmann, T.; Arend, D.; Arnaud, E.; Chen, D.; Cornut, G.; Fiorani, F.; Frohmberg, W.; Junker, A.; Klukas, C.; et al. Measures for interoperability of phenotypic data: Minimum information requirements and formatting. Plant Methods 2016, 12, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Wilkinson, M.D.; Dumontier, M.; Aalbersberg, I.J.; Appleton, G.; Axton, M.; Baak, A.; Blomberg, N.; Boiten, J.-W.; da Silva Santos, L.B.; Bourne, P.E.; et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 2016, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  175. Colmsee, C.; Joachim Keller, E.R.; Zanke, C.; Senula, A.; Funke, T.; Oppermann, M.; Weise, S.; Scholz, U. The garlic and shallot core collection image database of IPK presenting two vegetatively maintained crops in the Federal ex situ genebank for agricultural and horticultural crops at Gatersleben, Germany. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2012, 59, 1407–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Cobb, J.N.; Juma, R.U.; Biswas, P.S.; Arbelaez, J.D.; Rutkoski, J.; Atlin, G.; Hagen, T.; Quinn, M.; Ng, E.H. Enhancing the rate of genetic gain in public-sector plant breeding programs: Lessons from the breeder’s equation. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2019, 132, 627–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  177. Wang, C.; Hu, S.; Gardner, C.; Lübberstedt, T. Emerging avenues for utilization of exotic germplasm. Trends Plant Sci. 2017, 22, 624–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  178. Richards, C.M.; Lockwood, D.R.; Volk, G.M.; Walters, C. Modeling demographics and genetic diversity in ex situ collections during seed storage and regeneration. Crop Sci. 2010, 50, 2440–2447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Hoban, S. New guidance for ex situ gene conservation: Sampling realistic population systems and accounting for collection attrition. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 235, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Bustos-Korts, D.; Boer, M.P.; Malosetti, M.; Chapman, S.; Chenu, K.; Zheng, B.; Van Eeuwijk, F.A. Combining crop growth modeling and statistical genetic modeling to evaluate phenotyping strategies. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Crossa, J.; Jarquín, D.; Franco, J.; Pérez-Rodríguez, P.; Burgueño, J.; Saint-Pierre, C.; Vikram, P.; Sansaloni, C.; Petroli, C.; Akdemir, D.; et al. Genomic prediction of gene bank wheat landraces. G3 Genes Genom. Genet. 2016, 6, 1819–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. Gorjanc, G.; Jenko, J.; Hearne, S.J.; Hickey, J.M. Initiating maize pre-breeding programs using genomic selection to harness polygenic variation from landrace populations. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  183. Girma, G.; Bhattacharjee, R.; Lopez-Montes, A.; Gueye, B.; Ofodile, S.; Franco, J.; Abberton, M. Re-defining the yam (Dioscorea spp.) core collection using morphological traits. Plant Genet. Resour. 2017, 16, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Chung, H.K.; Kim, K.W.; Chung, J.W.; Lee, J.R.; Lee, S.Y.; Dixit, A.; Kang, H.K.; Zhao, W.; McNally, K.L.; Hamilton, R.S.; et al. Development of a core set from a large rice collection using a modified heuristic algorithm to retain maximum diversity. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2009, 51, 1116–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Dutta, M.; Phogat, B.S.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, N.; Kumari, J.; Pandey, A.C.; Singh, T.P.; Tyagi, R.K.; Jacob, S.R.; Srinivasan, K.; et al. Development of core set of wheat (Triticum spp.) germplasm conserved in the national genebank in India. In Advances in Wheat Genetics: From Genome to Field; Ogihara, Y., Takumi, S., Handa, H., Eds.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2015; pp. 33–45. [Google Scholar]
  186. Sanders, R. A New Approach to Mining Agricultural Gene Banks–To Speed the Pace of Research Innovation for Food Security; International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas: Beirut, Lebanon, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  187. Khazaei, H.; Street, K.; Bari, A.; Mackay, M.; Stoddard, F.L. The FIGS (Focused Identification of Germplasm Strategy) approach identifies traits related to drought adaptation in Vicia faba genetic resources. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e63107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  188. Endresen, D.T.F.; Street, K.; Mackay, M.; Bari, A.; Amri, A.; De Pauw, E.; Nazari, K.; Yahyaoui, A. Sources of resistance to stem rust (Ug99) in bread wheat and Durum wheat identified using focused identification of germplasm strategy. Crop Sci. 2012, 52, 764–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Bhullar, N.K.; Street, K.; Mackay, M.; Yahiaoui, N.; Keller, B. Unlocking wheat genetic resources for the molecular identification of previously undescribed functional alleles at the Pm3 resistance locus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 9519–9524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  190. El Bouhssini, M.; Street, K.; Amri, A.; Mackay, M.; Ogbonnaya, F.C.; Omran, A.; Abdalla, O.; Baum, M.; Dabbous, A.; Rihawi, F.; et al. Sources of resistance in bread wheat to Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia) in Syria identified using the Focused Identification of Germplasm Strategy (FIGS). Plant Breed. 2011, 130, 96–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Haupt, M.; Schmid, K. Combining focused identification of germplasm and core collection strategies to identify genebank accessions for central European soybean breeding. BioRxiv 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  192. Halewood, M.; Chiurugwi, T.; Sackville Hamilton, R.; Kurtz, B.; Marden, E.; Welch, E.; Michiels, F.; Mozafari, J.; Sabran, M.; Patron, N.; et al. Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: Opportunities and challenges emerging from the science and information technology revolution. New Phytol. 2018, 217, 1407–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Fu, Y.-B. The vulnerability of plant genetic resources conserved ex situ. Crop Sci. 2017, 57, 2314–2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  194. Gourdji, S.M.; Mathews, K.L.; Reynolds, M.; Crossa, J.; Lobell, D.B. An assessment of wheat yield sensitivity and breeding gains in hot environments. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 280, 20122190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Walters, C.; Volk, G.M.; Richards, C.M. Genebanks in the post-genomic age: Emerging roles and anticipated uses. Biodiversity 2008, 9, 68–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. A proposed strategic phenomic approach to improve the value and utilization of genetic resources. IPPN, international plant phenotyping network; EPPN, European plant phenotyping network; NAPPN, North American plant phenotyping network; APPF, Australian plant phenotyping Facility; DPPN, German plant phenotyping network; PHENOME, French plant phenomic infrastructure; GLIS, global information system; GeneSys-PGR, global portal on crop genetic Resources; GRIN-Global, global germplasm resource information network; EURISCO, European plant genetic resources search catalogue; SINGER, system-wide information network for genetic resources; GODAN, global open data for agriculture.
Figure 1. A proposed strategic phenomic approach to improve the value and utilization of genetic resources. IPPN, international plant phenotyping network; EPPN, European plant phenotyping network; NAPPN, North American plant phenotyping network; APPF, Australian plant phenotyping Facility; DPPN, German plant phenotyping network; PHENOME, French plant phenomic infrastructure; GLIS, global information system; GeneSys-PGR, global portal on crop genetic Resources; GRIN-Global, global germplasm resource information network; EURISCO, European plant genetic resources search catalogue; SINGER, system-wide information network for genetic resources; GODAN, global open data for agriculture.
Plants 09 00817 g001
Figure 2. Australian grains genebank (AGG) storage facilities and its application of HTP technology for phenotyping routine seed regenerations in laboratory, greenhouse and field.
Figure 2. Australian grains genebank (AGG) storage facilities and its application of HTP technology for phenotyping routine seed regenerations in laboratory, greenhouse and field.
Plants 09 00817 g002
Table 1. Examples of phenotypic traits can be exploited from genebank germplasm by using sensors and phenotyping platforms.
Table 1. Examples of phenotypic traits can be exploited from genebank germplasm by using sensors and phenotyping platforms.
TraitsDescriptionSensors and Capture modeSpeciesEnvironmentReferences
Morphology
Plant architectureNumber of tillers of wheat plantsAutomated RGB1 imaging platform, LemnaTec 3D ScanalyzerTriticum aestivumGreenhouse[94]
Node and internode length of tomato seedlingsRGB imagerySolanum lycopersicumGreenhouse[95]
Characterization of plant architecture by 3D scanning reconstructionBlue-laser scannerSolanum lycopersicum,
Nicotiana benthamiana,
Sorghum bicolor
Greenhouse[96]
Canopy structure (tiller and leaf number, leaf length and angle, leaf elongation rate)RGB imageryTriticum aestivumGreenhouse[50]
A phenotyping platform, PANorama, measuring architectural properties (panicle, branch, leaf) of various crop species.RGB imaging unitOryza sativa
Zea mays
Solanum lycopersicum
Laboratory[97]
Plant heightSorghum plant height estimatesUltrasonic, LiDAR2-Lite, Kinect camera, imaging array, UAV3 RGB imagerySorghum bicolorField[98]
Wheat plant height estimationUGV4 and UAV RGB imageryTriticum aestivumField[51,99]
Rice plant height estimationUAV RGB imageryOryza sativaField[59]
Barley plant height measurementUAV RGB imageryHordeum vulgareField[60]
Maize plant height estimatesUAV RGB imageryZea maysField[100,101]
Leaf propertiesCharacterization of local leaf vein in legume leavesColor scannerVigna angularis
Phaseolus vulgaris
Glycine max
Laboratory[102]
Leaf morphological properties and height of maize, measured by various digital phenotyping methods3D scanner, Multi-view stereo cameras, FastTrack 3D digitizerZea maysLaboratory[103]
Inflorescence and fruit
An automated imaging system for monitoring the growths of maize ear and silksRGB imaging platformZea maysGreenhouse[104]
Analysis of panicle architecture and spikelet numbers in rice by an imaging tool, P-TRAP5RGB imageryOryza sativaField, laboratory[105,106]
Rice panicle phenotyping using Panicle-SEG6 algorithmRGB imageryOryza sativaField[107]
Characterization of maize tassel traits by RGB imaging and machine visionRGB imaging sensorsZea maysField[108,109]
Analysis of oat panicle developmentRGB imaging platformAvena sativaGreenhouse[110]
Fruit recognition and counting by an imaging robot, SPYSEERGB imaging robotCapsicum annuumGreenhouse[111]
Morphological characterization of wheat spike (grain number, size and angle, stem node)Computed Tomography imageryTriticum aestivumLaboratory[112]
Automatic quantification of wheat headsAutomated RGB imagery platform, Field ScanalyzerTriticum aestivumField[73]
Morphometric properties of wheat spikesRGB imageryTriticum aestivumLaboratory[113]
Seed characteristics
Seed quality of field pea (color, shape, and size) analyzed by multi-spectral imagingBuilt-in multi-spectral camera, EyeFossPisum sativumLaboratory[114]
Evaluating of lentil seed size by multi-spectral imagingBuilt-in multi-spectral camera, EyeFossLens culinarisLaboratory[61]
Screening method to evaluate seed propertiesNuclear magnetic resonanceAvena spp.Laboratory[115]
Rice seed shape analyzed by an image processing pipelineColor scannerOryza sativaLaboratory[116]
Analysis of maize ear, cob and kernel propertiesColor scannerZea maysLaboratory[117]
Estimation of ear characteristics and kernel weight in maizeRGB imageryZea maysField[118]
Morphological characteristics of wheat kernelsColor scanner and RGB imageryTriticum aestivumLaboratory[119]
Phenotypic classification of rice seed accessionsMultispectral imagery, VideometerLabOryza sativaLaboratory[62]
Shape description of pili seed by imaging technologyMultispectral imagery, VideometerLabCanarium ovatumLaboratory[120]
Automated morphological characterization of rapeseed and barley seedsAutomated RGB imaging unit, phenoSeederBrassica napus
Hordeum vulgare
Laboratory[121]
Automated phenotyping of oat seed propertiesNIR spectroscopy, Single-Seed AnalyzerAvena sativaLaboratory[122]
Phenology
Emergence countRice seedling countsHigh resolution UAV RGB imageryOryza sativaField[123]
Cotton seedling detection and count Ground-based video recordingGossypium hirsutumField[124]
Germination rate estimation in tomato by color imageryRGB imagerySolanum lycopersicumLaboratory[71]
Determination of plant density at emergence in wheatHigh resolution UAV RGB imageryTriticum aestivumField[125]
Ground coverGround cover estimatesHigh resolution UAV RGB imagerySorghum bicolor
Gossypium hirsutum
Saccharum spp.
Field[126]
FloweringAutomated observations of wheat floweringCCD7 digital cameraTriticum aestivumField[127]
Heading and flowering detection in wheatAutomated RGB imaging platformTriticum aestivumField[43]
Automated flowering observation in rice from a time-series RGB imagesAutomated RGB imaging platformOryza sativaField[58,128]
Estimation of flowering time in maizeUAV RGB imageryZea maysField[129]
Physiology
Early vigorEarly vigor of field pea seedlingsAutomated RGB imaging platform, LemnaTec 3D Scanalyzer and handheld active sensor, crop circlePisum sativumGreenhouse, field[42]
Wheat vigor and canopy height quantificationUGV and UAV RGB imageryTriticum aestivumField[51]
Monitoring plant and canopy growth dynamicsRGB or multispectral imagery, D3P8Triticum aestivumGreenhouse[130]
LodgingLodging score estimation in barley by aerial imageryHigh resolution UAV RGB imageryHordeum vulgareField[131]
Estimation of crop lodging in wheat by aerial imageryHigh resolution UAV RGB imageryTriticum aestivumField[132]
Rice lodging scores estimated by UNet model derived from aerial imageryHigh resolution UAV RGB and multispectral imageryOryza sativaField[133]
Photosynthesis and respirationPhotosynthetic capacities in tobaccoHandheld hyperspectral sensor, FieldSpec.Nicotiana tabacumField[134]
Leaf photosynthesis in maizeHandheld hyperspectral sensor, FieldSpec.Zea maysField[135]
Leaf photosynthesis and relevant physiological parameters in wheatHandheld hyperspectral sensor, FieldSpec.Triticum aestivumField[48]
Water soluble carbohydratesEstimates of stem water soluble carbohydrates at different growth stages in wheatHandheld hyperspectral sensor, FieldSpec.Triticum aestivumField[49]
Predicting the quality of ryegrass (sugar)Hyperspectral imaging platformLolium perenneField[53]
Canopy temperatureWheat canopy temperature measurementAirborne thermography and wireless infra-red thermometersTriticum aestivumField[54]
Maize canopy temperature measurementUAV thermal and RGB imageryZea maysField[136]
Canopy temperature and vegetation indices of wheatAirborne thermal and hyperspectral imageryTriticum aestivumField[29]
Stay greenStay-green associates with low water-soluble carbohydrates in oatHandheld active sensor GreenSeekerAvena sativaField[137]
Characterization of maize green leaf area dynamicsUAV multispectral imageryZea maysField[138]
Senescence rate in wheatUAV multispectral imageryTriticum aestivumField[52]
Biomass and yieldBiomass, ground cover and canopy height estimatesUGV LiDARTriticum aestivumField[55,139]
Estimation of shoot biomass by color imageryRGB imaging platform, LemnaTec 3D ScanalyzerTriticum aestivumGreenhouse[140]
Grain yield prediction by canopy hyperspectral reflectanceAirborne hyperspectral imageryTriticum aestivumField[30,141]
Wheat ear countsHandheld thermal imageryTriticum aestivumField[142]
Head counts in sorghumHigh resolution UAV RGB imagerySorghum bicolorField[143]
Counting of wheat spikesHandheld and UGV RGB imageryTriticum aestivumField[72,144]
Wheat biomass and yield, nitrogen related traitsAutomated RGB imaging platform, LemnaTec 3D ScanalyzerTriticum aestivumGreenhouse[41]
1 RGB, red green blue; 2 LiDAR, Light Detection and Ranging; 3 UAV, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle; 4 UGV, Unmanned Ground Vehicle; 5 P-TRAP, Panicle TRAit Phenotyping; 6 Panicle-SEG, Panicle segmentation algorithm; 7 CCD, charge-coupled device; 8 D3P, Digital Plant Phenotyping Platform.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nguyen, G.N.; Norton, S.L. Genebank Phenomics: A Strategic Approach to Enhance Value and Utilization of Crop Germplasm. Plants 2020, 9, 817. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9070817

AMA Style

Nguyen GN, Norton SL. Genebank Phenomics: A Strategic Approach to Enhance Value and Utilization of Crop Germplasm. Plants. 2020; 9(7):817. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9070817

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nguyen, Giao N., and Sally L. Norton. 2020. "Genebank Phenomics: A Strategic Approach to Enhance Value and Utilization of Crop Germplasm" Plants 9, no. 7: 817. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9070817

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop