Monitoring of drought stress and transpiration rate using proximal thermal and hyperspectral imaging in an indoor automated plant phenotyping platform.
Automation
Drought
Hyperspectral
Imaging
Maize
Phenotyping
Thermography
Transpiration rate
Journal
Plant methods
ISSN: 1746-4811
Titre abrégé: Plant Methods
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101245798
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Nov 2023
23 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
03
08
2023
accepted:
30
10
2023
medline:
24
11
2023
pubmed:
24
11
2023
entrez:
23
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Thermography is a popular tool to assess plant water-use behavior, as plant temperature is influenced by transpiration rate, and is commonly used in field experiments to detect plant water deficit. Its application in indoor automated phenotyping platforms is still limited and mainly focuses on differences in plant temperature between genotypes or treatments, instead of estimating stomatal conductance or transpiration rate. In this study, the transferability of commonly used thermography analysis protocols from the field to greenhouse phenotyping platforms was evaluated. In addition, the added value of combining thermal infrared (TIR) with hyperspectral imaging to monitor drought effects on plant transpiration rate (E) was evaluated. The sensitivity of commonly used TIR indices to detect drought-induced and genotypic differences in water status was investigated in eight maize inbred lines in the automated phenotyping platform PHENOVISION. Indices that normalized plant temperature for vapor pressure deficit and/or air temperature at the time of imaging were most sensitive to drought and could detect genotypic differences in the plants' water-use behavior. However, these indices were not strongly correlated to stomatal conductance and E. The canopy temperature depression index, the crop water stress index and the simplified stomatal conductance index were more suitable to monitor these traits, and were consequently used to develop empirical E prediction models by combining them with hyperspectral indices and/or environmental variables. Different modeling strategies were evaluated, including single index-based, machine learning and mechanistic models. Model comparison showed that combining multiple TIR indices in a random forest model can improve E prediction accuracy, and that the contribution of the hyperspectral data is limited when multiple indices are used. However, the empirical models trained on one genotype were not transferable to all eight inbred lines. Overall, this study demonstrates that existing TIR indices can be used to monitor drought stress and develop E prediction models in an indoor setup, as long as the indices normalize plant temperature for ambient air temperature or relative humidity.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Thermography is a popular tool to assess plant water-use behavior, as plant temperature is influenced by transpiration rate, and is commonly used in field experiments to detect plant water deficit. Its application in indoor automated phenotyping platforms is still limited and mainly focuses on differences in plant temperature between genotypes or treatments, instead of estimating stomatal conductance or transpiration rate. In this study, the transferability of commonly used thermography analysis protocols from the field to greenhouse phenotyping platforms was evaluated. In addition, the added value of combining thermal infrared (TIR) with hyperspectral imaging to monitor drought effects on plant transpiration rate (E) was evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The sensitivity of commonly used TIR indices to detect drought-induced and genotypic differences in water status was investigated in eight maize inbred lines in the automated phenotyping platform PHENOVISION. Indices that normalized plant temperature for vapor pressure deficit and/or air temperature at the time of imaging were most sensitive to drought and could detect genotypic differences in the plants' water-use behavior. However, these indices were not strongly correlated to stomatal conductance and E. The canopy temperature depression index, the crop water stress index and the simplified stomatal conductance index were more suitable to monitor these traits, and were consequently used to develop empirical E prediction models by combining them with hyperspectral indices and/or environmental variables. Different modeling strategies were evaluated, including single index-based, machine learning and mechanistic models. Model comparison showed that combining multiple TIR indices in a random forest model can improve E prediction accuracy, and that the contribution of the hyperspectral data is limited when multiple indices are used. However, the empirical models trained on one genotype were not transferable to all eight inbred lines.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, this study demonstrates that existing TIR indices can be used to monitor drought stress and develop E prediction models in an indoor setup, as long as the indices normalize plant temperature for ambient air temperature or relative humidity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37996870
doi: 10.1186/s13007-023-01102-1
pii: 10.1186/s13007-023-01102-1
pmc: PMC10668392
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
132Subventions
Organisme : Hercules Foundation
ID : ZW1101
Organisme : Universiteit Gent
ID : BOFMET2015000201
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Plant Physiol. 2021 Jun 11;186(2):1336-1353
pubmed: 33788927
J Exp Bot. 2004 Nov;55(407):2427-36
pubmed: 15286143
J Appl Stat. 2019 Jun 15;47(13-15):2312-2327
pubmed: 35707424
Sci Total Environ. 2017 Dec 31;609:755-763
pubmed: 28763672
J Exp Bot. 2020 Apr 6;71(7):2329-2338
pubmed: 31912133
Plant Cell Environ. 2006 Aug;29(8):1508-18
pubmed: 16898014
J Exp Bot. 2020 Apr 6;71(7):2253-2269
pubmed: 31872212
Sci Rep. 2015 Nov 04;5:15919
pubmed: 26531782
Plant Methods. 2019 Oct 22;15:116
pubmed: 31649744
J Exp Bot. 2020 Feb 19;71(4):1614-1627
pubmed: 31846000
Plant Cell Environ. 2006 Apr;29(4):653-60
pubmed: 17080615
Environ Monit Assess. 2018 Dec 11;191(1):13
pubmed: 30539375
J Stat Softw. 2010;33(1):1-22
pubmed: 20808728
Genetics. 2003 Dec;165(4):2117-28
pubmed: 14704191
J Exp Bot. 2019 May 9;70(10):2839-2855
pubmed: 30793211
Sensors (Basel). 2019 May 17;19(10):
pubmed: 31108868
Funct Plant Biol. 2016 Feb;44(1):119-133
pubmed: 32480551
J Exp Bot. 2020 Jul 25;71(15):4604-4615
pubmed: 32185382
Front Plant Sci. 2021 Feb 22;12:640914
pubmed: 33692820
Plant Methods. 2015 Apr 17;11:29
pubmed: 25904970
J Exp Bot. 2013 Oct;64(13):3937-49
pubmed: 23599272
Trends Plant Sci. 2019 Feb;24(2):152-164
pubmed: 30558964
Funct Plant Biol. 2009 Nov;36(11):970-977
pubmed: 32688708
J Exp Bot. 2010 Aug;61(13):3499-507
pubmed: 20605897
Sensors (Basel). 2021 Dec 22;22(1):
pubmed: 35009575
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Dec 02;7:1790
pubmed: 27994607
J Exp Bot. 2020 Apr 6;71(7):2312-2328
pubmed: 32092145
Plant Methods. 2020 Oct 16;16:140
pubmed: 33072176
PLoS Comput Biol. 2023 May 30;19(5):e1011161
pubmed: 37253069
Front Plant Sci. 2017 Sep 27;8:1681
pubmed: 29021803
J Exp Bot. 2012 Aug;63(13):4671-712
pubmed: 22922637
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Jan 14;20(2):
pubmed: 31947632
J Exp Bot. 2015 Apr;66(7):1817-32
pubmed: 25697789
J Exp Bot. 2005 Jul;56(417):1843-52
pubmed: 15897226
J Exp Bot. 2004 Jun;55(401):1423-31
pubmed: 15133055
Physiol Plant. 2022 Sep;174(5):e13762
pubmed: 36281841
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 May 23;20(10):
pubmed: 31126133
Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Jul 02;22(13):
pubmed: 34281241
Funct Plant Biol. 2015 Sep;42(9):858-864
pubmed: 32480728
Am J Bot. 2001 Feb;88(2):278-84
pubmed: 11222250
Funct Plant Biol. 2012 Apr;39(3):179-189
pubmed: 32480772