作物胁迫感知和植物表型测量系统综述
Crop Stress Sensing and Plant Phenotyping Systems: A Review
Received date: 2022-11-07
Online published: 2023-04-23
提高农田管理的资源施用效率和持续培育优良作物品种是确保粮食产量和减轻作物生产对环境影响的关键途径。作物胁迫感知和植物表型测量系统是田间变量管理和高通量植物表型测量研究的核心，且两者在硬件和数据处理技术上具有相似性。几十年来，人们一直在开发可以用在田间变量管理领域的作物胁迫感知系统，旨在建立更加可持续的田间管理方案。与此同时，田间高通量表型系统开发取得的重大进展为降低传统表型测量成本提供了技术基础。本文首先对田间变量管理中涉及的作物胁迫感知系统进行了回顾，特别对目前用于精准灌溉、氮素施用和农药喷洒中的感知和决策方法进行了总结。基于作者团队在内布拉斯加大学林肯分校开发的三套田间表型测量系统，对常见田间高通量表型测量系统的传感器和数据的处理分析流程进行了介绍。此外，讨论了当前田间表型测量系统面临的挑战并提出了潜在解决方案。人工智能、机器人平台和创新仪器的持续发展有望显著提高测量系统的性能，对系统在育种中的大范围应用起到积极作用。对主要植物生理过程更直接的测量可能成为未来田间表型研究领域的研究热点之一，并为培育更耐胁迫的作物新品种提供有价值的表型数据。这篇综述可为田间变量管理和高通量植物表型测量两个研究领域提供参考和独特的见解。
白更 , 葛玉峰 . 作物胁迫感知和植物表型测量系统综述[J]. 智慧农业, 2023 , 5(1) : 66 -81 . DOI: 10.12133/j.smartag.SA202211001
Enhancing resource use efficiency in agricultural field management and breeding high-performance crop varieties are crucial approaches for securing crop yield and mitigating negative environmental impact of crop production. Crop stress sensing and plant phenotyping systems are integral to variable-rate (VR) field management and high-throughput plant phenotyping (HTPP), with both sharing similarities in hardware and data processing techniques. Crop stress sensing systems for VR field management have been studied for decades, aiming to establish more sustainable management practices. Concurrently, significant advancements in HTPP system development have provided a technological foundation for reducing conventional phenotyping costs. In this paper, we present a systematic review of crop stress sensing systems employed in VR field management, followed by an introduction to the sensors and data pipelines commonly used in field HTPP systems. State-of-the-art sensing and decision-making methodologies for irrigation scheduling, nitrogen application, and pesticide spraying are categorized based on the degree of modern sensor and model integration. We highlight the data processing pipelines of three ground-based field HTPP systems developed at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Furthermore, we discuss current challenges and propose potential solutions for field HTPP research. Recent progress in artificial intelligence, robotic platforms, and innovative instruments is expected to significantly enhance system performance, encouraging broader adoption by breeders. Direct quantification of major plant physiological processes may represent one of next research frontiers in field HTPP, offering valuable phenotypic data for crop breeding under increasingly unpredictable weather conditions. This review can offer a distinct perspective, benefiting both research communities in a novel manner.
| 1 | MOLOTOKS A, SMITH P, DAWSON T P. Impacts of land use, population, and climate change on global food security[J]. Food and energy security, 2021, 10(1): ID e261. |
| 2 | FAO I, UNICEF, WFP AND WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022. Repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable[R]. Rome, Italy: FAO, 2022. |
| 3 | PATHAK T, MASKEY M, DAHLBERG J, et al. Climate change trends and impacts on California agriculture: A detailed review[J]. Agronomy, 2018, 8(3): ID 25. |
| 4 | LOBELL D B, CASSMAN K G, FIELD C B. Crop yield gaps: Their importance, magnitudes, and causes[J]. Annual review of environment and resources, 2009, 34: 179-204. |
| 5 | RONG L B, GONG K Y, DUAN F Y, et al. Yield gap and resource utilization efficiency of three major food crops in the world: A review[J]. Journal of integrative agriculture, 2021, 20(2): 349-362. |
| 6 | PIERCE F J, NOWAK P. Aspects of precision agriculture[M]// Donald L. Sparks, Advances in agronomy. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1999: 1-85. |
| 7 | SCHIMMELPFENNING D. Farm Profits and Adoption of Precision Agriculture[R]// Washington: Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 2016. |
| 8 | SISHODIA R P, RAY R L, SINGH S K. Applications of remote sensing in precision agriculture: A review[J]. Remote sensing, 2020, 12(19): ID 3136. |
| 9 | SEGARRA J, BUCHAILLOT M L, ARAUS J L, et al. Remote sensing for precision agriculture: Sentinel-2 improved features and applications[J]. Agronomy, 2020, 10(5): ID 641. |
| 10 | MAES W H, STEPPE K. Perspectives for remote sensing with unmanned aerial vehicles in precision agriculture[J]. Trends in plant science, 2019, 24(2): 152-164. |
| 11 | MADEC S, BARET F, DE SOLAN B, et al. High-throughput phenotyping of plant height: Comparing unmanned aerial vehicles and ground LiDAR estimates[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2017, 8: ID 2002. |
| 12 | TETEN S L. Sensor-based nitrogen management on non-irrigated corn based systems in Nebraska[D]. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2021. |
| 13 | CLARK R L, MCGUCKIN R L. Variable rate application technology: An overview[C]// Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Precision Agriculture. Madison, WI, USA: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, 2015: 855-862. |
| 14 | MOORE S, HAN Y J, KHALILIAN A, et al. Instrumentation for variable-rate lateral irrigation system[C]// 2005 ASAE Annual International Meeting. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2005. |
| 15 | SARI? R, NGUYEN V D, BURGE T, et al. Applications of hyperspectral imaging in plant phenotyping[J]. Trends in plant science, 2022, 27(3): 301-315. |
| 16 | FENG L, CHEN S S, ZHANG C, et al. A comprehensive review on recent applications of unmanned aerial vehicle remote sensing with various sensors for high-throughput plant phenotyping[J]. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 2021, 182: ID 106033. |
| 17 | LI D L, QUAN C Q, SONG Z Y, et al. High-throughput plant phenotyping platform (HT3P) as a novel tool for estimating agronomic traits from the lab to the field[J]. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2020, 8: ID 623705. |
| 18 | XIAO Q L, BAI X L, ZHANG C, et al. Advanced high-throughput plant phenotyping techniques for genome-wide association studies: A review[J]. Journal of advanced research, 2022, 35: 215-230. |
| 19 | ATEFI A, GE Y F, PITLA S, et al. Robotic technologies for high-throughput plant phenotyping: Contemporary reviews and future perspectives[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2021, 12: ID 611940. |
| 20 | GE Y F, ATEFI A, ZHANG H C, et al. High-throughput analysis of leaf physiological and chemical traits with VIS-NIR-SWIR spectroscopy: A case study with a maize diversity panel[J]. Plant methods, 2019, 15: 66. |
| 21 | BHATTI S, HEEREN D M, EVETT S R, et al. Crop response to thermal stress without yield loss in irrigated maize and soybean in Nebraska[J]. Agricultural water management, 2022, 274: ID 107946. |
| 22 | SHI Y Y, THOMASSON J A, MURRAY S C, et al. Unmanned aerial vehicles for high-throughput phenotyping and agronomic research[J]. PLoS One, 2016, 11(7): e0159781. |
| 23 | ZHANG C Y, MARZOUGUI A, SANKARAN S. High-resolution satellite imagery applications in crop phenotyping: An overview[J]. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 2020, 175: ID 105584. |
| 24 | XU R, LI C Y. A review of high-throughput field phenotyping systems: Focusing on ground robots[J]. Plant phenomics, 2022, 2022: ID 9760269. |
| 25 | DHAWAN V. Water and Agriculture in India-Background paper for the South Asia expert panel during the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture (GFFA)[R]. Hamburg: OAV-German Asia-Pacific Business Association, 2017. |
| 26 | TAKATSUKA Y, NIEKUS M R, HARRINGTON J, et al. Value of irrigation water usage in South Florida agriculture[J]. Science of the total environment, 2018, 626: 486-496. |
| 27 | MALL N K, HERMAN J D. Water shortage risks from perennial crop expansion in California's Central Valley[J]. Environmental research letters, 2019, 14(10): ID 104014. |
| 28 | MEDELLíN-AZUARA J, ESCRIVA-BOU A, ABATZOGLOU J A, et al. Economic Impacts of the 2021 Drought on California Agriculture. Preliminary Report[R]. Merced: University of California, 2022. |
| 29 | MARSTON LT, LAMSAL G, ANCONA ZH, et al. Reducing water scarcity by improving water productivity in the United States[J]. Environmental research letters, 2020, 15(9): ID 094033. |
| 30 | BROWN T C, MAHAT V, RAMIREZ J A. Adaptation to future water shortages in the United States caused by population growth and climate change[J]. Earth's future, 2019, 7(3): 219-234. |
| 31 | RICHTER B D, BARTAK D, CALDWELL P, et al. Water scarcity and fish imperilment driven by beef production[J]. Nature sustainability, 2020, 3(4): 319-328. |
| 32 | IRMAK S, PAYERO J O, VANDEWALLE B, et al. Principles and operational characteristics of watermark granular matrix sensor to measure soil water status and its pratical applications for irrigation management in various soil textures[R]. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2016. |
| 33 | JACKSON R D, IDSO S B, REGINATO R J, et al. Canopy temperature as a crop water stress indicator[J]. Water resources research, 1981, 17(4): 1133-1138. |
| 34 | IRMAK S, HAMAN D Z, BASTUG R. Determination of crop water stress index for irrigation timing and yield estimation of corn[J]. Agronomy journal, 2000, 92(6): 1221-1227. |
| 35 | ALLEN R G, PEREIRA L S, RAES D, et al. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No.56: Crop Evapotranspiration[R]. Rome: FAO-Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1998. |
| 36 | EISENHAUER D E, MARTIN D L, HOFFMAN G J. Irrigation Systems Management[M]. State of Michigan, USA: American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2021 |
| 37 | O'SHAUGHNESSY S A, EVETT S R, COLAIZZI P D. Dynamic prescription maps for site-specific variable rate irrigation of cotton[J]. Agricultural water management, 2015, 159: 123-138. |
| 38 | NEALE C M U, GELI H M E, KUSTAS W P, et al. Soil water content estimation using a remote sensing based hybrid evapotranspiration modeling approach[J]. Advances in water resources, 2012, 50: 152-161. |
| 39 | USDA. Estimating soil moisture by feel and appearance[R]. Washington D.C.: NRCS, USDA, 1998. |
| 40 | JENSEN M E, ALLEN R G. Evaporation, evapotranspiration, and irrigation water requirements[M]. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016. |
| 41 | WANJURA D F, UPCHURCH D R, MAHAN J R. Control of irrigation scheduling using temperature-time thresholds[J]. Transactions of the ASAE, 1995, 38(2): 403-409. |
| 42 | PETERS R T, EVETT S R. Modeling diurnal canopy temperature dynamics using one-time-of-day measurements and a reference temperature curve[J]. Agronomy journal, 2004, 96(6): 1553-1561. |
| 43 | O'SHAUGHNESSY S A, KIM M, ANDRADE M A, et al. Site-specific irrigation of grain sorghum using plant and soil water sensing feedback-Texas High Plains[J]. Agricultural water management, 2020, 240: ID 106273. |
| 44 | NEALE C M U, BAUSCH W C, HEERMANN D F. Development of reflectance-based crop coefficients for corn[J]. Transactions of the ASAE, 1990, 32(6): ID 1891. |
| 45 | BARKER J B, NEALE C M U, HEEREN D M, et al. Evaluation of a hybrid reflectance-based crop coefficient and energy balance evapotranspiration model for irrigation management[J]. Transactions of the ASABE, 2018, 61(2): 533-548. |
| 46 | NEBRASKA U O. Nutrient Management for agronomic crops in Nebraska[R]. Lincoln, NE, USA: The University of Nebraska, 2014. |
| 47 | SUN B, ZHANG L X, YANG L Z, et al. Agricultural non-point source pollution in China: Causes and mitigation measures[J]. Ambio, 2012, 41(4): 370-379. |
| 48 | WICK K, HEUMESSER C, SCHMID E. Groundwater nitrate contamination: Factors and indicators[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2012, 111: 178-186. |
| 49 | WHO. Nitrate and nitrite in drinking-water: Background document for development of WHO guidelines for drinking-water quality[R]. Geneva: WHO, 2003. |
| 50 | WOLFE A H, PATZ J A. Reactive nitrogen and human health: Acute and long-term implications[J]. AMBIO: A journal of the human environment, 2002, 31(2): 120-125. |
| 51 | MALZER G L, COPELAND P J, DAVIS J G, et al. Spatial variability of profitability in site-specific N management[C]// Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Precision Agriculture. Madison, WI, USA: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, 2015: 967-975. |
| 52 | VARINDERPAL-SINGH, BIJAY-SINGH, YADVINDER-SINGH, et al. Need based nitrogen management using the chlorophyll meter and leaf colour chart in rice and wheat in South Asia: A review[J]. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, 2010, 88(3): 361-380. |
| 53 | PENG S, GARCIA F V, LAZA R C, et al. Increased N-use efficiency using a chlorophyll meter on high-yielding irrigated rice[J]. Field crops research, 1996, 47(2/3): 243-252. |
| 54 | SCHARF P C, SHANNON D K, PALM H L, et al. Sensor-based nitrogen applications out-performed producer-chosen rates for corn in on-farm demonstrations[J]. Agronomy journal, 2011, 103(6): 1683-1691. |
| 55 | HOLLAND K H, SCHEPERS J S. Derivation of a variable rate nitrogen application model for In-season fertilization of corn[J]. Agronomy journal, 2010, 102(5): 1415-1424. |
| 56 | OSU. Sensor Based Nitrogen Rate Calculator, Improved Methodology for Nitrogen Fertilization in Corn, Wheat, Sorghum, and Bermudagrass, Nitrogen Use Efficiency[Z/OL]. [2022-11-07]. . |
| 57 | BEAN G M, KITCHEN N R, CAMBERATO J J, et al. Improving an active-optical reflectance sensor algorithm using soil and weather information[J]. Agronomy journal, 2018, 110(6): 2541-2551. |
| 58 | BERGER K, VERRELST J, FéRET J B, et al. Retrieval of aboveground crop nitrogen content with a hybrid machine learning method[J]. International journal of applied earth observation and geoinformation, 2020, 92: ID 102174. |
| 59 | NIGON T, YANG C, DIAS PAIAO G, et al. Prediction of early season nitrogen uptake in maize using high-resolution aerial hyperspectral imagery[J]. Remote sensing, 2020, 12(8): ID 1234. |
| 60 | HOLLAND K H, SCHEPERS J S. Use of a virtual-reference concept to interpret active crop canopy sensor data[J]. Precision agriculture, 2013, 14(1): 71-85. |
| 61 | CHLINGARYAN A, SUKKARIEH S, WHELAN B. Machine learning approaches for crop yield prediction and nitrogen status estimation in precision agriculture: A review[J]. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 2018, 151: 61-69. |
| 62 | ZHANG W. Global pesticide use: Profile, trend, cost/benefit and more[J]. Proceedings of the International Academy of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2018, 8(1): 1-27 |
| 63 | HUBER A, BACH M, FREDE H G. Pollution of surface waters with pesticides in Germany: Modeling non-point source inputs[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 2000, 80(3): 191-204. |
| 64 | KONSTANTINOU I K, HELA D G, ALBANIS T A. The status of pesticide pollution in surface waters (rivers and lakes) of Greece. Part I. Review on occurrence and levels[J]. Environmental pollution, 2006, 141(3): 555-570. |
| 65 | GARCíA M G, SáNCHEZ J I L, BRAVO K A S, et al. Review: Presence, distribution and current pesticides used in Spanish agricultural practices[J]. Science of the total environment, 2022, 845: ID 157291. |
| 66 | NUYTTENS D, BAETENS K, DE SCHAMPHELEIRE M, et al. Effect of nozzle type, size and pressure on spray droplet characteristics[J]. Biosystems engineering, 2007, 97(3): 333-345. |
| 67 | MILLER P C H, ELLIS M C B, LANE A G, et al. Methods for minimising drift and off-target exposure from boom sprayer applications[Z]. Crop Protection in Southern Britain, Holiday Inn Hotel, Impington, Cambridge, 23-24 February 2011. 2011: 281-288. |
| 68 | BAI G, NAKANO K, MIZUKAMI T, et al. Characteristics and classification of Japanese nozzles based on relative spray drift potential[J]. Crop protection, 2013, 46: 88-93. |
| 69 | REICHENBERGER S, BACH M, SKITSCHAK A, et al. Mitigation strategies to reduce pesticide inputs into ground-and surface water and their effectiveness: A review[J]. Science of the total environment, 2007, 384(1/2/3): 1-35. |
| 70 | ALLMENDINGER A, SPAETH M, SAILE M, et al. Precision chemical weed management strategies: A review and a design of a new CNN-based modular spot sprayer[J]. Agronomy, 2022, 12(7): ID 1620. |
| 71 | ZHANG Y, SLAUGHTER D C, STAAB E S. Robust hyperspectral vision-based classification for multi-season weed mapping[J]. ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing, 2012, 69: 65-73. |
| 72 | HERRMANN I, SHAPIRA U, KINAST S, et al. Ground-level hyperspectral imagery for detecting weeds in wheat fields[J]. Precision agriculture, 2013, 14(6): 637-659. |
| 73 | EDDY P R, SMITH A M, HILL B D, et al. Weed and crop discrimination using hyperspectral image data and reduced bandsets[J]. Canadian journal of remote sensing, 2014, 39(6): 481-490. |
| 74 | YANG C H, EVERITT J H. Mapping three invasive weeds using airborne hyperspectral imagery[J]. Ecological informatics, 2010, 5(5): 429-439. |
| 75 | HASAN A S M M, SOHEL F, DIEPEVEEN D, et al. A survey of deep learning techniques for weed detection from images[J]. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 2021, 184: ID 106067. |
| 76 | WU Z N, CHEN Y J, ZHAO B, et al. Review of weed detection methods based on computer vision[J]. Sensors, 2021, 21(11): ID 3647. |
| 77 | ZHANG W, MIAO Z H, LI N, et al. Review of current robotic approaches for precision weed management[J]. Current robotics reports, 2022, 3(3): 139-151. |
| 78 | ROSLE R, CHE'YA N N, ANG Y H, et al. Weed detection in rice fields using remote sensing technique: A review[J]. Applied sciences, 2021, 11(22): ID 10701. |
| 79 | BEHMANN J, MAHLEIN A K, RUMPF T, et al. A review of advanced machine learning methods for the detection of biotic stress in precision crop protection[J]. Precision agriculture, 2015, 16(3): 239-260. |
| 80 | PETRELLIS N. A review of image processing techniques common in human and plant disease diagnosis[J]. Symmetry, 2018, 10(7): 270. |
| 81 | LI L L, ZHANG S J, WANG B. Plant disease detection and classification by deep learning: a review[J]. IEEE access, 2021, 9: 56683-56698. |
| 82 | LIU J, WANG X W. Plant diseases and pests detection based on deep learning: A review[J]. Plant methods, 2021, 17(1): 22. |
| 83 | SALEEM M H, POTGIETER J, MAHMOOD ARIF K. Plant disease detection and classification by deep learning[J]. Plants, 2019, 8(11): 468. |
| 84 | LEE S H, GO?AU H, BONNET P, et al. New perspectives on plant disease characterization based on deep learning[J]. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 2020, 170: ID 105220. |
| 85 | CHAMARA N, ISLAM M D, BAI G, et al. Ag-IoT for crop and environment monitoring: Past, present, and future[J]. Agricultural systems, 2022, 203: ID 103497. |
| 86 | KHIRADE S D, PATIL A B. Plant disease detection using image processing[C]// 2015 International Conference on Computing Communication Control and Automation. Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE, 2015: 768-771. |
| 87 | MOHANTY S P, HUGHES D P, SALATHé M. Using deep learning for image-based plant disease detection[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2016, 7: ID 1419. |
| 88 | FRAZIER A E, HEMINGWAY B L. A technical review of planet smallsat data: Practical considerations for processing and using PlanetScope imagery[J]. Remote sensing, 2021, 13(19): ID 3930. |
| 89 | BUJA I, SABELLA E, MONTEDURO A G, et al. Advances in plant disease detection and monitoring: From traditional assays to In-field diagnostics[J]. Sensors, 2021, 21(6): ID 2129. |
| 90 | BAI G, BLECHA S, GE Y F, et al. Characterizing wheat response to water limitation using multispectral and thermal imaging[J]. Transactions of the ASABE, 2017, 60(5): 1457-1466. |
| 91 | BAI G, GE Y F, HUSSAIN W, et al. A multi-sensor system for high throughput field phenotyping in soybean and wheat breeding[J]. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 2016, 128: 181-192. |
| 92 | YUAN W A, LI J T, BHATTA M, et al. Wheat height estimation using LiDAR in comparison to ultrasonic sensor and UAS[J]. Sensors (basel, Switzerland), 2018, 18(11): ID 3731. |
| 93 | BAI G, JENKINS S, YUAN W A, et al. Field-based scoring of soybean iron deficiency chlorosis using RGB imaging and statistical learning[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2018, 9: ID 1002. |
| 94 | JENKINS S. Soybean response to water: Trait identification and prediction[D]. Lincoln, NE, USA: The University of Nebraska - Lincoln, 2020. |
| 95 | BAI G, GE Y F, SCOBY D, et al. NU-Spidercam: A large-scale, cable-driven, integrated sensing and robotic system for advanced phenotyping, remote sensing, and agronomic research[J]. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 2019, 160: 71-81. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
