Imaging Methods for Phenotyping of Plant Traits

  • David Rousseau
  • Hannah Dee
  • Tony Pridmore


This chapter introduces the domain of image analysis, both in general and as applied to the problem of plant phenotyping. Images can be thought of as a measurement tool, and the automated processing of images allows for greater throughput, reliability and repeatability, at all scales of measurement (from microscopic to field level). This domain should be of increasing interest to plant scientists, as the cost of image-based sensors is dropping, and photographing plants on a daily or even minute-by-minute basis is now cost-effective. With such systems there is a possibility of tens of thousands of photographs being recorded, and so the job of analysing these images must now fall to computational methods. In this chapter, we provide an overview of recent work in image analysis for plant science and highlight some of the key techniques from computer vision that have been applied to date to the problem of phenotyping plants. We conclude with a description of the four main challenges for image analysis and plant science: growth, occlusion, evaluation and low-cost sensor vision.


Hyperspectral Imaging Plant Science Plant Phenotyping Machine Vision System Cellular Resolution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anonymous (2012) Focus on bioimage informatics. Spec Issue Nat Methods 9(7):627–763Google Scholar
  2. Bass M, DeCusatis C, Enoch J, Lakshminarayanan V, Li G, MacDonald C, Mahajan V, Van Stryland E (2009) Handbook of optics, vol I, 3rd edn, Geometrical and physical optics, polarized light, components and instruments. McGraw-Hill Professional, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Belin E, Rousseau D, Léchappé J, Langlois-Meurinne M, Durr C (2011a) Rate-distortion tradeoff to optimize high-throughput phenotyping system. Application to x-ray images of seeds. Comput Electron Agric 77:188–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belin E, Rousseau D, Rojas-Varela J, Demilly D, Wagner MH, Cathala MH, Dürr C (2011b) Thermography as non invasive functional imaging for monitoring seedling growth. Comput Electron Agric 79:236–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benoit L, Rousseau D, Belin E, Demilly D, Ducourneau S, Chapeau-Blondeau F, Dürr C (2013) Locally oriented anisotropic image diffusion: application to phenotyping of seedlings. In: 8th international conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications (VISAPP 2013), Barcelona, 21–24 Feb 2013Google Scholar
  6. Billiot B, Cointault F, Journaux L, Simon J, Gouton P (2013) 3D image acquisition system based on shape from focus technique. Sensors 13:5040–5053CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Biskup B, Scharr H, Schurr U, Rascher U (2007) A stereo imaging system for measuring structural parameters of plant canopies. Plant Cell Environ 10:1299–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boudon F, Godin C, Puech O, Pradal C, Sinoquet H (2006) Estimating the fractal dimension of plants using the two-surface method. An analysis based on 3D-digitized tree foliage. Fractals 14:149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chéné Y, Rousseau D, Lucidarme P, Bertheloot J, Caffier V, Morel P, Belin E, Chapeau-Blondeau F (2012) On the use of depth camera for 3D phenotyping of entire plants. Comput Electron Agric 82:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chéné Y, Belin E, Rousseau D, Chapeau-Blondeau F (2013) Multiscale analysis of depth images from natural scenes: scaling in the depth of the woods. Chaos Solitons Fractals 54:135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cloetens P, Mache R, Schlenker M, Lerbs-Mache S (2006) Quantitative phase tomography of arabidopsis seeds reveals intercellular void network. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:14626–14630CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. de Vylder J, Vandenbussche FJ, Hu Y, Philips W, van der Straeten D (2012) Rosette Tracker: an open source image analysis tool for automatic quantification of genotype effects. Plant Physiol 160:1149–1159CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dee HM, Santos PE (2011) The perception and content of cast shadows: an interdisciplinary review. Spat Cogn Comput 11(3):226–253Google Scholar
  14. Du J, Wang X, Zhang G (2007) Leaf shape based plant species recognition. Appl Math Comput 2:883–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett 27(8):861–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernandez R, Das P, Mirabet V, Moscardi E, Traas J, Verdeil J, Malandain G, Godin C (2010) Imaging plant growth in 4D: robust issue reconstruction and lineaging at cell resolution. Nat Methods 7:547–553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiorani F, Rascher U, Jahnke S (2012) Imaging plants dynamics in heterogenic environments. Curr Opin Biotechnol 23:227–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. French A, Ubeda-Tomás S, Holman TJ, Bennett MJ, Pridmore T (2009) High-throughput quantification of root growth using a novel image-analysis tool. Plant Physiol 150:1784–1795CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Furbank RT, Tester M (2011) Phenomics-technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck. Trends Plant Sci 16:635–644CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gwo C, Wei C, Li Y (2013) Rotary matching of edge features for leaf recognition. Comput Electron Agric 91:124–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kay S (1998) Fundamentals of statistical signal processing: detection theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  22. Kimura K, Yamasaki S (2003) Accurate root length and diameter measurement using NIH image: use of Pythagorean distance for diameter estimation. Plant Soil 254:305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klose R, Penlington J, Ruckelshausen A (2009) Usability study of 3D time-of-flight cameras for automatic plant phenotyping. Bornimer Agrartechnische Ber 69:93–105Google Scholar
  24. Kraft M, Saloma De Freitag N, Munack A (2010) Test of a 3D time of flight camera for shape measurements of plants. In: CIGR workshop on Image Analysis in Agriculture, Budapest, 26–27 Aug 2010, pp 108–116Google Scholar
  25. Lee K, Avondo J, Morrison H, Blot L, Stark M, Sharpe J, Bangham A, Coen E (2006) Visualizing plant development and genes expression in three dimensions using optical projection tomography. Plant Cell 18:2145–2156CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vis 60:91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matas J, Chum O, Martin U, Pajdla T (2002) Robust wide baseline stereo from maximally stable extremal regions. Proc Br Mach Vis Conf 1:384–393Google Scholar
  28. Minervini M, Rusu C, Tsaftaris SA (2013) Learning computationally efficient approximations of complex image segmentation metrics. In: 8th international symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis, Trieste, 4–6 Sept 2013, pp 60–65Google Scholar
  29. Mirmehdi M, Xie X, Suri J (2008) Handbook of texture analysis. Imperial College Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nilsback ME, Zisserman A (2010) Delving deeper into the whorl of flower segmentation. Image Vis Comput 28(6):1049–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Omasa K, Hosoi F, Konishi A (2007) 3D lidar imaging for detecting and understanding plant responses and canopy structure. J Exp Bot 158:881–898Google Scholar
  32. Ozdalga E, Ozdlaga A, Ahuja N (2012) The smartphone in medicine: a review of current and potential use among physicians and students. J Med Internet Res 14:e128CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Pamplona C, Passos E, Zizka J, Oliveira M, Lawson E, Clua E, Raskar R (2011) Catra: cataract probe with a lightfield display and a snap-on eyepiece for mobile phones. SIGGRAPH, Vancouver, 7–11 Aug 2011Google Scholar
  34. Papageorgiou G, Govindjee (2004) Chlorophyll a fluorescence: a probe of photosynthesis. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruderman DL, Bialek W (1994) Statistics of natural images: scaling in the woods. Phys Rev Lett 73:814–817CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanin A, Sanderson C, Lovell BC (2012) Shadow detection: a survey and comparative evaluation of recent methods. Pattern Recogn 45(4):1684–1695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sankaran S, Mishra A, Ehsani R, Davis C (2010) A review of advanced techniques for detecting plant diseases. Comput Electron Agric 59:634–644Google Scholar
  38. Schmid C, Mikolajczyk K (2005) A performance evaluation of local descriptors. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach 10:1615–1630Google Scholar
  39. Sena G, Frentz Z, Birnbaum K, Leibler S (2011) Quantification of cellular dynamics in growing arabidopsis roots with light sheet microscopy. PLoS One 6:1932–6203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soares JV, Jacobs DW (2013) Efficient segmentation of leaves in semi-controlled conditions. Mach Vis Appl. doi: 10.1007/s00138-013-0530-0 Google Scholar
  41. Spalding EP, Miller ND (2013) Image analysis is driving a renaissance in growth measurement. Curr Opin Plant Biol 16:100–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Subramanian R, Spalding EP, Frerrier NJ (2013) A high throughput robot system for machine vision base plant phenotype studies. Mach Vis Appl 24:619–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tsaftaris SA, Noutsos C (2009) Plant phenotyping with low cost digital cameras and image analytics. In: Information technologies in environmental engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 238–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van der Heijden G, Song Y, Horgan G, Polder G, Dieleman A, Bink M, Palloix A, van Eeuwijk F, Glasbey C (2012) SPICY: towards automated phenotyping of large pepper plants in the greenhouse. Funct Plant Biol 39(11):870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Viola P, Jones M (2001) Robust real-time object detection. Int J Comput Vis 57:137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang L, Assadi AH, Spalding EP (2009) Tracing branched curvilinear structures with a novel adaptive local PCA algorithm. Plant Physiol 53:1632–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang S, Dee HM, Doonan J (2012) Modelling colour variation in arabidopsis rosettes with a low-cost capture device. In: International workshop on Image Analysis Methods for the Plant Sciences, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, 6 Sept 2012Google Scholar
  48. Wells DM, French AP, Naeem A, Ishaq O, Traini R, Hijazi H, Bennett MJ, Pridmore TP (2012) Rootrak: automated recovery of 3D plant root architecture in soil from X-ray micro computed tomography using visual tracking. Plant Physiol 158:567–569Google Scholar
  49. Zhu H, Yaglidere O, Su T, Tseng D, Ozcan A (2011) Cost-effective and compact wide-field fluorescent imaging on a cell-phone. R Soc Chem 11:315–322Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Lyon, CREATIS, CNRS UMR5220, INSERM U1044, Université de Lyon 1, INSA-LyonVilleurbanneFrance
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceAberystwyth UniversityAberystwythUK
  3. 3.Center for Plant Integrative BiologyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations