Bitki Islahında Kullanılan Yüksek Kapasiteli Fenotipleme Araçları

Öz

Dünya nüfusundaki hızlı artış ve iklim değişikliğinin tarımsal üretim üzerindeki baskısı, bitki ıslahında fenotipleme süreçlerinin etkinliğini stratejik bir öncelik haline getirmiştir. Bu anlatımsal derleme; bitki ıslah programlarında kullanılan yüksek kapasiteli fenotipleme (HTP) araçlarını sensörler, görüntüleme sistemleri, analitik yazılım platformları ve veri yönetimi bileşenleri çerçevesinde kapsamlı biçimde ele almayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu doğrultuda RGB, yakın kızılötesi (NIR), termal ve hiperspektral kameralar başta olmak üzere güncel görüntüleme ve algılama teknolojileri ile PlantCV, HTPheno, IAP ve LemnaGrid gibi analitik araçlar incelenmiş; büyük ölçekli otomatik fenotipleme sistemlerinin ürettiği yüksek hacimli verinin yönetimi ve işlenmesi için gereken altyapı tartışılmıştır. Derleme bulgularına göre, HTP sistemleri insan duyularıyla tespit edilemeyen morfolojik, fizyolojik ve biyokimyasal özellikleri yüksek doğrulukla ölçebilmekte ve klasik ıslah döngülerini önemli ölçüde kısaltmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, maliyet-fayda dengesi, veri standartlaşması ve saha koşullarına uyarlanabilirlik alanlarında kritik araştırma boşlukları varlığını sürdürmektedir. Fenotipleme ve moleküler teknolojilerin bütünleştirilmesi, iklim değişikliğine uyumlu üstün çeşitlerin geliştirilmesini ivmelendirme potansiyeli taşımakta ve geleceğin sürdürülebilir tarım sistemlerine güçlü bir altyapı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tarım
• Bitki Islahı
• Fenotip
• Yeni Nesil Fenotipleme

Teşekkür

Yazarlar bu makalenin bazı bölümlerinde dil düzenlemesi için Google Gemini kullanmış olup metni kontrol edip düzenlemiştir. Sonucundaki içeriğin tüm sorumluluğunu yazarlar üstlenmiştir.

The Usage of High-throughput Phenotyping Tools in Plant Breeding

Öz

The rapid growth of the world population and the pressure of climate change on agricultural production have made the effectiveness of phenotyping processes in plant breeding a strategic priority. This narrative review aims to comprehensively examine high-throughput phenotyping (HTP) tools used in plant breeding programs within the framework of sensors, imaging systems, analytical software platforms, and data management components. In this context, current imaging and sensing technologies, primarily RGB, near-infrared (NIR), thermal, and hyperspectral cameras, as well as analytical tools such as PlantCV, HTPheno, IAP, and LemnaGrid, are reviewed, and the infrastructure required for the management and processing of high-volume data produced by large-scale automated phenotyping systems is discussed. According to the findings of this review, HTP systems can measure morphological, physiological, and biochemical traits that cannot be detected by human senses with high accuracy, significantly shortening classical breeding cycles. However, critical research gaps persist in the areas of cost-benefit balance, data standardization, and adaptability to field conditions. The integration of phenotyping and molecular technologies has the potential to accelerate the development of superior varieties adapted to climate change, offering a robust infrastructure for the sustainable agricultural systems of the future.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Agriculture
• Plant Breeding
• Phenotype
• New Generation Phenotyping

Teşekkür

The authors used Google Gemini for language editing in some sections of this article and reviewed and edited the text. The authors are fully responsible for the resulting content.

Kaynakça

1. Altieri, M. A., & Nicholls, C. I. (2017). The adaptation and mitigation potential of traditional agriculture in a changing climate. Climatic change, 140(1), 33-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0909-y
2. Andrade-Sanchez, P., Gore, M. A., Heun, J. T., Thorp, K. R., Carmo-Silva, A. E., French, A. N., ... & White, J. W. (2013). Development and evaluation of a field-based high-throughput phenotyping platform. Functional Plant Biology, 41(1), 68-79. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP13126
3. Araus, J. L., Kefauver, S. C., Zaman-Allah, M., Olsen, M. S., & Cairns, J. E. (2018). Translating high-throughput phenotyping into genetic gain. Trends in plant science, 23(5), 451-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2018.02.001 External Link
4. Baerenfaller, K., Massonnet, C., Walsh, S., Baginsky, S., Bühlmann, P., Hennig, L., ... & Gruissem, W. (2012). Systems‐based analysis of Arabidopsis leaf growth reveals adaptation to water deficit. Molecular systems biology, 8(1), https://doi.org/10.1038/msb.2012.39
5. Bai, G., Ge, Y., Scoby, D., Leavitt, B., Stoerger, V., Kirchgessner, N., ... & Awada, T. (2019). NU-Spidercam: A large-scale, cable-driven, integrated sensing and robotic system for advanced phenotyping, remote sensing, and agronomic research. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 160, 71-81. 10.1016/j.compag.2019.03.009
6. Bao, Y., Aggarwal, P., Robbins, N. E., Sturrock, C. J., Thompson, M. C., Tan, H. Q., ... & Dinneny, J. R. (2014). Plant roots use a patterning mechanism to position lateral root branches toward available water. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(25), 9319-9324. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400966111
7. Barker III, J., Zhang, N., Sharon, J., Steeves, R., Wang, X., Wei, Y., & Poland, J. (2016). Development of a field-based high-throughput mobile phenotyping platform. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 122, 74-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.01.017
8. Caldeira, C. F., Bosio, M., Parent, B., Jeanguenin, L., Chaumont, F., & Tardieu, F. (2014). A hydraulic model is compatible with rapid changes in leaf elongation under fluctuating evaporative demand and soil water status. Plant Physiology, 164(4), 1718-1730. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.113.228379

9. Chawade, A., Armoniené, R., Berg, G., Brazauskas, G., Frostgård, G., Geleta, M., ... & Weih, M. (2018). A transnational and holistic breeding approach is needed for sustainable wheat production in the Baltic Sea region. Physiologia plantarum, 164(4), 442-451. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.12726
10. Chen, J., Xu, Q., Luo, L., Wang, Y., & Wang, S. (2019). A robust method for automatic panoramic UAV image mosaic. Sensors, 19(8), 1898. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19081898
11. Crain, J. L., Wei, Y., Barker III, J., Thompson, S. M., Alderman, P. D., Reynolds, M., ... & Poland, J. (2016). Development and deployment of a portable field phenotyping platform. Crop Science, 56(3), 965-975. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2015.05.0290
12. De Vylder, J., Vandenbussche, F., Hu, Y., Philips, W., & Van Der Straeten, D. (2012). Rosette tracker: an open source image analysis tool for automatic quantification of genotype effects. Plant physiology, 160(3), 1149-1159. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.112.202762
13. Elmgren, R., & Larsson, U. (2001). Nitrogen and the Baltic Sea: managing nitrogen in relation to phosphorus. The Scientific World Journal, 1(2), 371-377. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2001.291
14. Fahlgren, N., Feldman, M., Gehan, M. A., Wilson, M. S., Shyu, C., Bryant, D. W., ... & Baxter, I. (2015). A versatile phenotyping system and analytics platform reveals diverse temporal responses to water availability in Setaria. Molecular plant, 8(10), 1520-1535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2015.06.005
15. FAO (2009). How to Feed the World in 2050. High-Level Expert Forum, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
16. Federer, W. T., & Crossa, J. (2012). I. 4 screening experimental designs for quantitative trait loci, association mapping, genotype-by environment interaction, and other investigations. Frontiers in Physiology, 3, 156. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2012.00156
17. Golzarian, M. R., Frick, R. A., Rajendran, K., Berger, B., Roy, S., Tester, M., & Lun, D. S. (2011). Accurate inference of shoot biomass from high-throughput images of cereal plants. Plant methods, 7, 1-11. https://doi: 10.1186/1746-4811-7-2.
18. Hannemann, J. A. N., Poorter, H., Usadel, B., Blaesing, O. E., Finck, A., Tardieu, F., ... & Gibon, Y. (2009). Xeml Lab: a tool that supports the design of experiments at a graphical interface and generates computer‐readable metadata files, which capture information about genotypes, growth conditions, environmental perturbations and sampling strategy. Plant, Cell & Environment, 32(9), 1185-1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01964.x
19. Hartmann, A., Czauderna, T., Hoffmann, R., Stein, N., & Schreiber, F. (2011). HTPheno: an image analysis pipeline for high-throughput plant phenotyping. BMC bioinformatics, 12(1), 148. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-148
20. Huang, Y., Thomson, S. J., Lan, Y., & Maas, S. J. (2010). Multispectral imaging systems for airborne remote sensing to support agricultural production management. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 3(1), 50-62. https://doi.org/10.3965/j.issn.1934-6344.2010.01.0-0
21. Hunter, M. C., Smith, R. G., Schipanski, M. E., Atwood, L. W., & Mortensen, D. A. (2017). Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for sustainable intensification. Bioscience, 67(4), 386-391. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix010
22. Ilic, K., Kellogg, E. A., Jaiswal, P., Zapata, F., Stevens, P. F., Vincent, L. P., ... & Rhee, S. Y. (2007). The plant structure ontology, a unified vocabulary of anatomy and morphology of a flowering plant. Plant physiology, 143(2), 587-599. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.106.092825
23. Jones, J. W., Antle, J. M., Basso, B., Boote, K. J., Conant, R. T., Foster, I., ... & Wheeler, T. R. (2017). Brief history of agricultural systems modeling. Agricultural systems, 155, 240-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.05.014
24. Juan, L., & Gwun, O. (2009). A comparison of sift, pca-sift and surf. International Journal of Image Processing (IJIP), 3(4), 143-152.
25. Kempenaar, C., Been, T., Booij, J., Van Evert, F., Michielsen, J. M., & Kocks, C. (2017). Advances in variable rate technology application in potato in the Netherlands. Potato research, 60(3), 295-305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11540-018-9357-4
26. Kim, J. Y. (2020). Roadmap to high throughput phenotyping for plant breeding. Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 45(1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42853-020-00043-0
27. Kim, J. Y., & French, J. (2015). High throughput phenotyping for soybean breeding applications. In Technical Community of Monsanto Conference. (pp. 9-11)
28. Kim, J. Y., French, J., Ye, X., Kramer, A. J., Lussenden, R. L., Gulleson, J. A., & Carlson, C. M. (2016). Ground remote sensing for soybean IDC screening. In Technical Community of Monsanto Conference, TCM2016 . (pp. 7-9)
29. Klukas, C., Chen, D., & Pape, J. M. (2014). Integrated analysis platform: an open-source information system for high-throughput plant phenotyping. Plant physiology, 165(2), 506-518. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.113.233932
30. Kooper, R., Burnette, M., Maloney, J., & LeBauer, D. (2017, December). Data flow for the TERRA-REF project. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. (pp. IN31A-0063)
31. Lado, B., Matus, I., Rodriguez, A., Inostroza, L., Poland, J., Belzile, F., ... & von Zitzewitz, J. (2013). Increased genomic prediction accuracy in wheat breeding through spatial adjustment of field trial data. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, 3(12), 2105-2114. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.113.007807
32. Leakey, A. D., Ainsworth, E. A., Bernacchi, C. J., Rogers, A., Long, S. P., & Ort, D. R. (2009). Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE. Journal of experimental botany, 60(10), 2859-2876. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erp096
33. Leister, D., Varotto, C., Pesaresi, P., Niwergall, A., & Salamini, F. (1999). Large-scale evaluation of plant growth in Arabidopsis thaliana by non-invasive image analysis. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 37(9), 671-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0981-9428(00)80097-2
34. Liang, X., Wang, K., Huang, C., Zhang, X., Yan, J., & Yang, W. (2016). A high-throughput maize kernel traits scorer based on line-scan imaging. Measurement, 90, 453-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.05.015
35. Liu, Q., Liu, W., Zou, L., Wang, J., & Liu, Y. (2012). A new approach to fast mosaic UAV images. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 38, 271-276. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XXXVIII-1-C22-271-2011
36. Lu, Y., Savage, L. J., Ajjawi, I., Imre, K. M., Yoder, D. W., Benning, C., ... & Last, R. L. (2008). New connections across pathways and cellular processes: industrialized mutant screening reveals novel associations between diverse phenotypes in Arabidopsis. Plant physiology, 146(4), 1482-1500. 28 https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.107.115220
37. Mahlein, A. K. (2016). Plant disease detection by imaging sensors–parallels and specific demands for precision agriculture and plant phenotyping. Plant disease, 100(2), 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-03-15-0340-FE
38. MAPIR (2019). Creating the ortho-mosaic. Retrieved June 19, 2019, www.mapir. camera/pages/processing-survey3-camera-images.
39. Masuka, B., Atlin, G. N., Olsen, M., Magorokosho, C., Labuschagne, M., Crossa, J., ... & Cairns, J. E. (2017). Gains in maize genetic improvement in Eastern and Southern Africa: I. CIMMYT hybrid breeding pipeline. Crop Science, 57(1), 168-179. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2016.05.0343
40. Masuka, B., Magorokosho, C., Olsen, M., Atlin, G. N., Bänziger, M., Pixley, K. V., ... & Cairns, J. E. (2017). Gains in maize genetic improvement in Eastern and Southern Africa: II. CIMMYT open‐pollinated variety breeding pipeline. Crop Science, 57(1), 180-191. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2016.05.0408
41. Mishra, Y., Johansson Jänkänpää, H., Kiss, A. Z., Funk, C., Schröder, W. P., & Jansson, S. (2012). Arabidopsisplants grown in the field and climate chambers significantly differ in leaf morphology and photosystem components. BMC Plant Biology, 12(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-12-6
42. Mohanty, S. P., Hughes, D. P., & Salathé, M. (2016). Using deep learning for image-based plant disease detection. Frontiers in plant science, 7, 1419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01419
43. Montesinos-López, A., Montesinos-López, O. A., Cuevas, J., Mata-López, W. A., Burgueño, J., Mondal, S., ... & Crossa, J. (2017). Genomic Bayesian functional regression models with interactions for predicting wheat grain yield using hyper-spectral image data. Plant Methods, 13(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-017-0212-4
44. Parent, B., & Tardieu, F. (2014). Can current crop models be used in the phenotyping era for predicting the genetic variability of yield of plants subjected to drought or high temperature? Journal of experimental botany, 65(21), 6179-6189. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru223
45. Pawara, P., Okafor, E., Surinta, O., Schomaker, L., & Wiering, M. (2017). Comparing local descriptors and bags of visual words to deep convolutional neural networks for plant recognition. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Pattern Recognition Applications and Methods. (pp. 479-486)
46. Planet (2019). Planet imagery and archive. Retrieved Aug 18, 2019, from www.planet.com/ products/planet-imagery/.
47. Pretty, J. N. (1997, November). The sustainable intensification of agriculture. In Natural Resources Forum. (pp. 247-256). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.1997.tb00699.x
48. Rebetzke, G. J., Jimenez-Berni, J. A., Bovill, W. D., Deery, D. M., & James, R. A. (2016). High-throughput phenotyping technologies allow accurate selection of stay-green. Journal of experimental botany, 67(17), 4919-4924. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw301
49. Reynolds, D., Baret, F., Welcker, C., Bostrom, A., Ball, J., Cellini, F., ... & Tardieu, F. (2019). What is cost-efficient phenotyping? Optimizing costs for different scenarios. Plant Science, 282, 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.06.015
50. Shakoor, N., Northrup, D., Murray, S., & Mockler, T. C. (2019). Big data driven agriculture: big data analytics in plant breeding, genomics, and the use of remote sensing technologies to advance crop productivity. The Plant Phenome Journal, 2(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.2135/tppj2018.12.0009
51. Shi, J., Gao, H., Wang, H., Lafitte, H. R., Archibald, R. L., Yang, M., ... & Habben, J. E. (2017). ARGOS 8 variants generated by CRISPR‐Cas9 improve maize grain yield under field drought stress conditions. Plant biotechnology journal, 15(2), 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12603
52. Sticklen, M. B. (2007). Feedstock crop genetic engineering for alcohol fuels. Crop science, 47(6), 2238-2248. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2007.04.0212D
53. Sun, S., Li, C., & Paterson, A. H. (2017). In-field high-throughput phenotyping of cotton plant height using LiDAR. Remote Sensing, 9(4), 377. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9040377
54. Tanger, P., Klassen, S., Mojica, J. P., Lovell, J. T., Moyers, B. T., Baraoidan, M., ... & McKay, J. K. (2017). Field-based high throughput phenotyping rapidly identifies genomic regions controlling yield components in rice. Scientific reports, 7(1), 42839. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42839
55. Tardieu, F., & Parent, B. (2017). Predictable ‘meta‐mechanisms’ emerge from feedbacks between transpiration and plant growth and cannot be simply deduced from short‐term mechanisms. Plant, Cell & Environment, 40(6), 846-857. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12822
56. Tester, M., & Langridge, P. (2010). Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science, 327(5967), 818-822. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183700
57. Thompson, A. L., Conrad, A., Conley, M. M., Shrock, H., Taft, B., Miksch, C., ... & Dyer, J. M. (2018). Professor: A motorized field-based phenotyping cart. HardwareX, 4, e00025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ohx.2018.e00025
58. Ubbens, J. R., & Stavness, I. (2017). Deep plant phenomics: a deep learning platform for complex plant phenotyping tasks. Frontiers inPlantScience, 8, 1190. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01190
59. Vadez, V., Kholova, J., Medina, S., Kakkera, A., & Anderberg, H. (2014). Transpiration efficiency: new insights into an old story. Journal of experimental botany, 65(21), 6141-6153. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru040
60. Visentin, I., Vitali, M., Ferrero, M., Zhang, Y., Ruyter‐Spira, C., Novák, O., ... & Cardinale, F. (2016). Low levels of strigolactones in roots as a component of the systemic signal of drought stress in tomato. New Phytologist, 212(4), 954-963. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14190
61. Wang, E., Martre, P., Zhao, Z., Ewert, F., Maiorano, A., Rötter, R. P., ... & Asseng, S. (2017). The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions. Nature plants, 3(8), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.102
62. Xiong, P., Liu, X., Gao, C., Zhou, Z., Gao, C., & Liu, Q. (2013). A real-time stitching algorithm for UAV aerial images. In Conference of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Electronics Engineering (ICCSEE 2013). (pp. 1613-1616). https://doi.org/10.2991/iccsee.2013.405
63. Yang, C., & Hoffmann, W. C. (2015). Low-cost single-camera imaging system for aerial applicators. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, 9(1), 096064-096064. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.9.096064
64. Yang, C., Huang, Q., Li, Z., Liu, K., & Hu, F. (2017). Big Data and cloud computing: innovation opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Digital Earth, 10(1), 13-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2016.1239771