Advertisement

Phenotyping Through Infrared Thermography in Stress Environment

  • Zamin Shaheed SiddiquiEmail author
  • Muhammad Umar
  • Taek-Ryoun Kwon
  • Soo Chul Park
Chapter
Part of the Tasks for Vegetation Science book series (TAVS, volume 49)

Abstract

Abiotic stress like drought and salinity is the major environmental constraints that limit agricultural production. Physiological mechanisms explaining plant tolerance offer valuable insights for the development of genetically modified crops. Plant water status and alteration in photosynthetic capacity are some common physiological depictions which are induced by abiotic stress like drought and salinity. Chiefly it is because both stresses caused cellular dehydration in the plants, predominantly, during the initial phase of stress imposition. In water stress CO2 availability is greatly reduced due to stomatal limitation; subsequently leaf temperature is elevated. So that studies on plant water status and stomatal regulation are important aspects in abiotic stress environment stabilizing the temperature inside plant/leaf. Therefore phenotyping using infrared thermography (heat sensitive sensor) could be a useful tool in the selection of tolerant genotypes. Generally infrared thermography is sensitive, less time-consuming, and nondestructive methodology which detects heat produced or generated by leaf under the influence of external factors. In general, temperature display pattern on IR images is inversely proportional to leaf water status. It was observed that infrared images are significantly correlated with some of the physiological traits indicating tolerance grading among genotypes.

Keywords

IR thermography Phenotyping Physiology Salt stress Drought stress Stomatal conductance 

References

  1. Ashraf M, Wu L (1994) Breeding for salinity tolerance in plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 13:17–42Google Scholar
  2. Bartels D, Sunkar R (2005) Drought and salt tolerance in plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:23–58Google Scholar
  3. Berger B, Parent B, Tester M (2010) High-throughput shoot imaging to study drought response. J Exp Bot 61:3519–3528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bray EA, Bailey-Serres J, Weretilnyk E (2000) Responses to abiotic stresses. In: Gruissem W, Buchnnan B, Jones R (eds) Biochemistry and molecular biology of plants. American Society of Plant Physiologists, Rockville, pp 1158–1249Google Scholar
  5. Brennan JP, Condon AG, Van-Ginkel M, Reynolds MP (2007) An economic assessment of the use of physiological selection for stomatal aperture-related traits in the CIMMYT wheat breeding program. J Agric Sci 145:187–194Google Scholar
  6. Burke EJ, Brown SJ, Christidis N (2006) Modeling the recent evolution of global drought and projections for the twenty-first century with the Hadley Centre climate model. J Hydrometeorol 7:1113–1125Google Scholar
  7. Chaves MM (1991) Effects of water deficits on carbon assimilation. J Exp Bot 42:1–16Google Scholar
  8. Chaves MM, Flexas J, Pinheiro C (2009) Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Ann Bot 103:551–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins M, Fuentes S, Barlow EWR (2010) Partial root zone drying and deficit irrigation increase stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit in anisohydric grapevines. Funct Plant Biol 37:128–138Google Scholar
  10. Davies WJ, Kudoyarova G, Hartung W (2005) Long-distance ABA signaling and its relation to other signaling pathways in the detection of soil drying and the mediation of the plant’s response to drought. J Plant Growth Regul 24:285–295Google Scholar
  11. Fischer RA, Rees D, Sayre KD, Lu ZM, Cordon AG, Saavedra AL (1998) Wheat yield progress associated with higher stomatal conductance and photosynthetic rate and cooler canopies. Crop Sci 38:1467–1475Google Scholar
  12. Flexas J, Diaz-Espejo A, Galme’s J, Kaldenhoff R, Medrano H, Ribas-Carbo M (2007) Rapid variations of mesophyll conductance in response to changes in CO2 concentration around leaves. Plant Cell Environ 30:1284–1298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Flowers TJ (2004) Improving crop salt tolerance. J Exp Bot 55:307–319PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Garrity DP, O’Toole JC (1994) Screening rice for drought resistance at the reproduc-tive phase. Field Crop Res 39:99–110Google Scholar
  15. Jansen M, Gilmer F, Biskup B, Nagel KA, Rascher U, Fischbach A, Briem S, Dreissen G, Tittmann S, Braun S (2009) Simultaneous measurement of leaf growth and chlorophyll fluorescence via GROWSCREEN FLUORO allows detection of stress tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana and other rosette plants. Funct Plant Biol 36:902–914Google Scholar
  16. Jones HG, Serraj R, Loveys BR, Xiong L, Wheaton A, Price AH (2009) Thermal infrared imaging of crop canopies for the remote diagnosis and quantification of plant responses to water stress in the field. Funct Plant Biol 36:978–989Google Scholar
  17. Kumar V, Kumar D (1996) Response of Indian mustard to saline water application at different growth stages. Trans Indian Soc Desert Technol 15:121–125Google Scholar
  18. Kwon TR, Kim KH, Yoon HJ, Lee SK, Kim BK, Siddiqui ZS (2015) Phenotyping of plants for drought and salt tolerance using infra-red thermography. Plant Breed Biotechnol 3:299–307Google Scholar
  19. Lawlor DW, Cornic G (2002) Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant Cell Environ 25:275–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee SK, Kwon TR, Seo EJ, Bae SC (2011) Current statues of phenomics and its application for crop improvement: imaging systems for high-throughput screening. Korean Plant Breed J 43:165–172Google Scholar
  21. Lu Y, Hao Z, Xie C, Crossa J, Araus JL, Gao S, Vivek BS, Magorokosho C, Mugo S, Makumbi D, Taba S, Pan G, Li X, Rong T, Zhang S, Xua Y (2011) Large-scale screening for maize drought resistance using multiple selection criteria evaluated under water stressed and well-watered environments. Field Crop Res 124:37–45Google Scholar
  22. Merlot S, Mustilli AC, Genty B, North H, Lefevre V, Sotta B, Vavasseur A, Giraudat J (2002) Use of infrared thermal imaging to isolate Arabidopsis mutants defective in stomatal regulation. Plant J 30:601–609PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Munns R (1993) Physiological processes limiting plant growth in saline soil: some dogmas and hypotheses. Plant Cell Environ 16:15–24Google Scholar
  24. Munns R (2002) Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ 25:239–250PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:651–681PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Munns R, James RA, Lauchli A (2006) Approaches to increasing the salt tolerance of wheat and other cereals. J Exp Bot 57:1025–1043PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Munns R, James RA, Sirault XRR, Furbank RT, Jones HG (2010) New phenotyping methods for screening wheat and barley for beneficial responses to water deficit. J Exp Bot 61:3499–3507PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Penuelas J, Boada M (2003) A global change-induced biome shift in the Montseny mountains (NE Spain). Glob Chang Biol 9:131–140Google Scholar
  29. Prashar A, Jones HG (2014) Infra-red thermography as a high-throughput tool for field phenotyping. Agronomy 4:397–417Google Scholar
  30. Reynolds MP, Singh RP, Ibrahim A, Ageeb OAA, Larque-Saavenra A, Quick JS (1998) Evaluating physiological tools to complement empirical selection for wheat in warm environments. Euphytica 100:84–95Google Scholar
  31. Romano G, Zia S, Spreer W, Sanchez C, Cairns J, Aeaus JL, Muller J (2011) Use of thermography for screening genotypic water stress adaptation in tropical maize. Comput Electron Agric 79:61–74Google Scholar
  32. Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K (2000) Molecular response to dehydration and low temperature: differences and cross-talk between two stress signaling pathways. Curr Opin Plant Biol 3:217–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Siddiqui ZS (2013) Effects of double stress on antioxidant enzyme activity in Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek. Acta Bot Croat 72:145–156Google Scholar
  34. Siddiqui ZS, Khan MA, Kim BG, Huang JS, Kwon TR (2008) Physiological response of Brassica napus genotypes in combined stress. Plant Stress 2:78–83Google Scholar
  35. Siddiqui ZS, Cho JI, Kwon TR, Ahn BO, Lee KS, Jeong MJ, Ryu TH, Lee SK, Park SC, Park SH (2014a) Physiological mechanism of drought tolerance in transgenic rice plants expressing Capsicum annuum methionine sulfoxide reductase B2 (CaMsrB2) gene. Acta Physiol Plant 36:1143–1153Google Scholar
  36. Siddiqui ZS, Cho JI, Park SH, Kwon TR, Ahn BO, Lee GS, Jeong MJ, Kim KW, Lee SK, Park SC (2014b) Phenotyping of rice in salt stress environment using high-throughput infrared imaging. Acta Bot Croat 73:149–158Google Scholar
  37. Silveira JAG, Silva EN, Ferreira-Silva SL, Viégas RA (2012) Physiological mechanisms involved with salt and drought tolerance in Jatropha curcas plants. In: Carels N et al (eds) Jatropha, challenges for a new energy crop: volume 1: 125 Farming, Economics and Biofuel.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4806-8_7 Google Scholar
  38. Sirault XRR, James RA, Furbank RT (2009) A new screening method for osmotic component of salinity tolerance in cereals using infrared thermography. Funct Plant Biol 36:970–977Google Scholar
  39. Stepien P, Klobus G (2006) Water relations and photosynthesis in Cucumis sativus L. leaves under salt stress. Biol Plant 50:610–616Google Scholar
  40. Tavakkoli E, Fatehi F, Rengasamy P, McDonald GK (2012) A comparison of hydroponic and soil-based screening methods to identify salt tolerance in the field in barley. J Exp Bot 63:3853–3867.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers085 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Woo N, Badger MR, Pogoson B (2008) A rapid non-invasive procedure for quantitative assessment of drought survival using chlorophyll fluorescence. Plant Methods 4:27PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Zia S, Spohrer K, Wenyoung D, Spreer W, Romano G, Xiongkui H, Mller J (2011) Monitoring physiological responses to water stress in two maize varieties by infrared thermography. Int J Agric Biol Eng 4:7–15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zamin Shaheed Siddiqui
    • 1
    Email author
  • Muhammad Umar
    • 1
  • Taek-Ryoun Kwon
    • 2
  • Soo Chul Park
    • 2
  1. 1.Stress Physiology Phenomic Lab., Department of BotanyUniversity of KarachiKarachiPakistan
  2. 2.National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Rural Development AdministrationSuwonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations