4.7 Article

High-Throughput Phenotyping of Canopy Cover and Senescence in Maize Field Trials Using Aerial Digital Canopy Imaging

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs10020330

关键词

aerial sensing; maize; crop phenotyping; senescence; imaging

资金

  1. Stress Tolerant Maize for Africa (STMA) project - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. USAID
  3. MAIZE CGIAR research programme
  4. CGIAR Excellence in Breeding Platform

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the crop breeding process, the use of data collection methods that allow reliable assessment of crop adaptation traits, faster and cheaper than those currently in use, can significantly improve resource use efficiency by reducing selection cost and can contribute to increased genetic gain through improved selection efficiency. Current methods to estimate crop growth (ground canopy cover) and leaf senescence are essentially manual and/or by visual scoring, and are therefore often subjective, time consuming, and expensive. Aerial sensing technologies offer radically new perspectives for assessing these traits at low cost, faster, and in a more objective manner. We report the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) equipped with an RGB camera for crop cover and canopy senescence assessment in maize field trials. Aerial-imaging-derived data showed a moderately high heritability for both traits with a significant genetic correlation with grain yield. In addition, in some cases, the correlation between the visual assessment (prone to subjectivity) of crop senescence and the senescence index, calculated from aerial imaging data, was significant. We concluded that the UAV-based aerial sensing platforms have great potential for monitoring the dynamics of crop canopy characteristics like crop vigor through ground canopy cover and canopy senescence in breeding trial plots. This is anticipated to assist in improving selection efficiency through higher accuracy and precision, as well as reduced time and cost of data collection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据