Advertisement

Systematic Evaluation of Field Crop Performance Using Modern Phenotyping Tools and Techniques

  • Christopher R. Boomsma
  • Vladimir A. da Costa
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1864)

Abstract

The genetic improvement of field crops through plant breeding and genetic modification is highly dependent on understanding, measuring, selecting, and manipulating phenotypes. Most phenotypes result from the complex interaction of a crop’s genetics with the environment and management practices in which that crop is grown. Linking gene to phenotype in field environments to create superior crop varieties can therefore be challenging, particularly for genetically complex traits that are difficult to measure. This chapter is designed to help readers overcome these difficulties by describing tools and techniques used in successful crop improvement programs. It provides methodologies that can be broadly applied across numerous situations irrespective of field crop, environment, modest financial resources, or other factors. The chapter’s focus is primarily on small- and large-scale, replicated, research plot-based screening trials since these trials are crucial, ubiquitous, and costly for both public- and private-sector crop improvement programs. To ease the understanding of the protocols discussed, this chapter’s materials and methods section is composed of ten subsections, with each subsection covering a critical portion of the field crop phenotyping process: regulatory, environmental, and safety considerations; trait identification and prioritization; environment characterization; field site selection; experimental design; field design, preparation, and management; crop and soil measurements; environmental monitoring; in-field data recording; and data management and analysis.

Key words

Field crop Environment characterization Field selection Experimental design Research plot Phenotyping Secondary trait Remote sensing Unmanned aerial vehicle 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The information, data, or work presented herein was funded in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), United States Department of Energy, under Award Number DE-AR0000593. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the US Government or any agency thereof.

References

  1. 1.
    Bruce W, Edmeades G, Barker T (2002) Molecular and physiological approaches to maize improvement for drought tolerance. J Exp Bot 53:13–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chenu K, Cooper M, Hammer G et al (2011) Environment characterization as an aid to wheat improvement: interpreting genotype-environment interactions by modelling water-deficit patterns in North-Eastern Australia. J Exp Bot 62:1743–1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooper M, Gho C, Leafgren R et al (2014) Breeding drought-tolerant maize hybrids for the US corn-belt: discovery to product. J Exp Bot 65:6191–6204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Löffler C, Wei J, Fast T et al (2005) Classification of maize environments using crop simulation and geographic information systems. Crop Sci 45:1708–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fahlgren N, Gehan M, Baxter I (2015) Lights, camera, action: high-throughput phenotyping is ready for a close-up. Curr Opin Plant Biol 24:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Araus J, Serret M, Edmeades G (2012) Phenotyping maize for adaptation to drought. Front Physiol 3:305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reynolds M, Pask A, Pietragalla J (2012) Introduction. In: Pask A, Pietragalla J, Mullan D et al (eds) Physiological breeding II: a field guide to wheat phenotyping. CIMMYT, El BatánGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Altman N, Krzywinski M (2015) Points of significance: split plot design. Nat Meth 12:165–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crossa J (2012) Field experimental designs in agriculture. In: Reynolds M, Pask A, Mullan D (eds) Physiological breeding I: interdisciplinary approaches to improve crop adaptation. CIMMYT, El BatánGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pask A, Pietragalla J (2012) General recommendations for good field practice. In: Pask A, Pietragalla J, Mullan D et al (eds) Physiological breeding II: a field guide to wheat phenotyping. CIMMYT, El BatánGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tuberosa R (2012) Phenotyping for drought tolerance of crops in the genomics era. Front Physiol 3:347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pietragalla J, Pask A (2012) General recommendations for the use of instruments. In: Pask A, Pietragalla J, Mullan D et al (eds) Physiological breeding II: a field guide to wheat phenotyping. CIMMYT, El BatánGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Da Costa V, Cothren J (2011) Drought effects on gas exchange, chlorophyll, and plant growth of 1-methylcyclopropene treated cotton. Agron J 103:1230–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mullan D (2012) Spectral radiometry. In: Reynolds M, Pask A, Mullan D (eds) Physiological breeding I: interdisciplinary approaches to improve crop adaptation. CIMMYT, El BatánGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pinter P Jr, Hatfield J, Schepers J et al (2003) Remote sensing for crop management. Photogramm Eng Rem S 69:647–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lillesand T, Kiefer R, Chipman J (2014) Remote sensing and image interpretation. John Wiley & Sons, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shrestha R, Matteis L, Skofic M et al (2012) Bridging the phenotypic and genetic data useful for integrated breeding through a data annotation using the crop ontology developed by the crop communities of practice. Front Physiol 3:326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cobb J, DeClerck G, Greenberg A et al (2013) Next-generation phenotyping: requirements and strategies for enhancing our understanding of genotype-phenotype relationships and its relevance to crop improvement. Theor Appl Genet 126:867–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Burton A, Brown K, Lynch J (2013) Phenotypic diversity of root anatomical and architectural traits in Zea species. Crop Sci 53:1042–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boomsma C, Santini J, Tollenaar M et al (2009) Maize morphophysiological responses to intense crowding and low nitrogen availability: an analysis and review. Agron J 101:1426–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trachsel S, Kaeppler S, Brown K et al (2010) Shovelomics: high throughput phenotyping of maize (Zea mays L.) root architecture in the field. Plant Soil 341:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ciampitti I, Vyn T (2012) Grain nitrogen source changes over time in maize: a review. Crop Sci 53:366–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    White J, Andrade-Sanchez P, Gore M et al (2012) Field-based phenomics for plant genetics research. Field Crop Res 133:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rahaman M, Chen D, Gillani Z et al (2015) Advanced phenotyping and phenotype data analysis for the study of plant growth and development. Front Plant Sci 6:619CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher R. Boomsma
    • 1
  • Vladimir A. da Costa
    • 2
  1. 1.American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of AmericaMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Kemin Industries, Inc.Des MoinesUSA

Personalised recommendations