Image-Based Phenotyping and Computer Vision in Agriculture
Description
Phenotyping has long been recognized as a major bottleneck in crop improvement, limiting the effective translation of genomic advances into genetic gain. Traditional phenotyping methods relied heavily on manual measurements and visual scoring, which were labor intensive, and time-consuming. The integration of image-based phenotyping with computer vision (CV), machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) technologies has enabled high-throughput, non-destructive, objective, and scalable trait assessment across both the controlled and field environments. This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of imaging platforms including greenhouse-based systems, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), tractor-mounted sensors, and ground phenocarts and imaging modalities such as RGB, hyperspectral, thermal, and LiDAR-based 3D systems. It describes the evolution of computational approaches from classical image processing to modern deep learning architectures such as Faster R-CNN, U-Net, and YOLO. Crop-specific applications in rice, wheat, maize, sorghum, soybean, barley, potato, tomato, cotton, and grapevine are discussed, highlighting advances in stress detection, yield prediction, organ counting, disease diagnosis, and structural trait extraction. The chapter further outlines standard phenotyping workflows, advantages for breeding programs, limitations, and emerging trends such as multimodal data fusion and AI-driven digital breeding systems.
Files
9. Aparna Vishnumolakala.pdf
Files
(361.2 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:e62897e05e3a73ccd3647306b2d61c86
|
361.2 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- 1. Araus, J. L., & Cairns, J. E. (2014). Field high-throughput phenotyping: The new crop breeding frontier. Trends in Plant Science, 19(1), 52–61. 2. Fahlgren, N., et al. (2015). A versatile phenotyping system and analytics platform reveals diverse temporal responses to water availability in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology, 169(1), 38–53. 3. Falk, K. G., et al. (2020). Automated soybean phenotyping using computer vision. Plant Methods, 16, 1–15. 4. Ghosal, S., et al. (2019). Automated plant head detection in field crops using deep learning. Plant Methods, 15, 1–14. 5. Kamilaris, A., & Prenafeta-Boldú, F. X. (2018). Deep learning in agriculture: A survey. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 147, 70–90. 6. Li, L., et al. (2021). A deep learning-based high-throughput phenotyping platform for maize. Plant Methods, 17, 1–16. 7. Minervini, M., et al. (2015). Image analysis: The new bottleneck in plant phenotyping. Plant Methods, 11, 1–13. 8. Neumann, K., et al. (2015). High-throughput phenotyping of plant response to salt stress. Plant Methods, 11, 1–12. 9. Polder, G., et al. (2019). Detection of potato late blight using deep learning. Precision Agriculture, 20, 1–15. 10. Pound, M. P., et al. (2017). Deep machine learning provides state-of-the-art performance in image-based plant phenotyping. GigaScience, 6(10), 1–10. 11. Rahnemoonfar, M., & Sheppard, C. (2017). Deep count: Fruit counting using deep learning. Sensors, 17(4), 905. 12. Singh, A., et al. (2018). Machine learning for high-throughput stress phenotyping. Trends in Plant Science, 23(10), 883–898. 13. Yang, W., et al. (2020). High-throughput phenotyping in rice using computer vision. Molecular Plant, 13(7), 1036–1050. 14. Zhang, C., et al. (2019). UAV hyperspectral remote sensing for crop yield prediction. Remote Sensing of Environment, 233, 111–121. 15. Zhou, J., et al. (2021). Deep learning-based spike detection in wheat. Plant Phenomics, 2021, 1–12.