4.7 Article

High-Throughput Phenotyping of Seed/Seedling Evaluation Using Digital Image Analysis

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy8050063

关键词

imaging; sensing; image processing; coleoptile; root injury; seed; seedling traits; automated trait assessment

资金

  1. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [1008828]
  2. USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture, Hatch Project [1002864]
  3. NIFA [690384, 1002864] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Image-based evaluation of phenotypic traits has been applied for plant architecture, seed, canopy growth/vigor, and root characterization. However, such applications using computer vision have not been exploited for the purpose of assessing the coleoptile length and herbicide injury in seeds. In this study, high-throughput phenotyping using digital image analysis was applied to evaluate seed/seedling traits. Images of seeds or seedlings were acquired using a commercial digital camera and analyzed using custom-developed image processing algorithms. Results from two case studies demonstrated that it was possible to use image-based high-throughput phenotyping to assess seeds/seedlings. In the seedling evaluation study, using a color-based detection method, image-based and manual coleoptile length were positively and significantly correlated (p < 0.0001) with reasonable accuracy (r = 0.69-0.91). As well, while using a width-and-color-based detection method, the correlation coefficient was also significant (p < 0.0001, r = 0.89). The improvement of the germination protocol designed for imaging will increase the throughput and accuracy of coleoptile detection using image processing methods. In the herbicide study, using image-based features, differences between injured and uninjured seedlings can be detected. In the presence of the treatment differences, such a technique can be applied for non-biased symptom rating.

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