Phenomics is a fast emerging field of technology wherein precise phenotyping can be completed in a high-throughput manner. The image-based phenotyping can be done with the help of visible, near-infra-red (NIR), infrared (IR), fluorescence, and hyperspectral cameras mounted onto a tripod or an automated high-throughput phenotyping platform. The images are captured in visible, NIR, and UV wavelengths one or three angles: one top view and two side views. Through the analysis of images, measurements of traits like leaf area, plant biomass, plant and soil water contents, chlorophyll content, plant growth rate, seed and fruit phenotypes, senescence and root structure, etc. can be made. Phenomics approaches are widely used for the study of responses to abiotic stresses, particularly drought stress, using a combination of digital imaging technologies. In addition, phenomics can be applied for efficient screening of mutants and transgenics, monitoring of disease epidemics, selection of desirable genotypes from breeding population, etc. This chapter is devoted to the discussion of the concept of phenomics, imaging technologies, and their applications for phenotyping of various traits, as well as the software programs for image processing. Some of the technologies are being used for the selection of desirable genotypes in moderate to large breeding programs. Attempts are being made to develop the technology of field-based phenotyping to allow the use of these approaches in breeding programs.


Green Fluorescent Protein Leaf Area Normalize Difference Vegetative Index Chlorophyll Content Soil Water Content 
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 (2008) Field Estimation of soil water content: a practical guide to methods, instrumentation and sensor technology; Training course series No. 30. International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  2. Araus JL, Cairns JE (2014) Field high-throughput phenotyping: the new crop breeding frontier. Trends Plant Sci 19:52–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger B, Parent B, Tester M (2010) High-throughput shoot imaging to study drought responses. J Exp Bot 61:3519–3528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Busemeyer L, Ruckelshausen A, Moller K et al (2013) Precision phenotyping of biomass accumulation in triticale reveals temporal genetic patterns of regulation. Scientific Rep 3:2442. doi: 10.1038/srep02442 Google Scholar
  5. Chaerle L, Van Der Straeten D (2001) Seeing is believing: imaging techniques to monitor plant health. Biochim Biophys Acta 1519:153–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaerle L, Lenk S, Leinonen L et al (2009) Multi-sensor plant imaging: towards the development of a stress-catalogue. Biotechnol J 4:1152–1167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark RT, MacCurdy RB, Jung JK et al (2011) Three-dimensional root phenotyping with a novel imaging and software platform. Plant Physiol 156:455–465PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark RT, Famoso AN, Zhao K et al (2013) High-throughput two-dimensional root system phenotyping platform facilitates genetic analysis of root growth and development. Plant Cell Environ 36:454–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cobb JN, 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 126:867–887PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Vylder J, Vandenbussche F, Hu Y et al (2012) Rosette Tracker: an open source image analysis tool for automatic quantification of genotype effects. Plant Physiol 160:1149–1159PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fiorani F, Schurr U (2013) Future scenarios for plant phenotyping. Annu Rev Plant Biol 64:267–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Furbank RT, Tester M (2011) Phenomics – technologies to relieve the phenotyping bottleneck. Trends Plant Sci 16:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerlai R (2002) Phenomics: fiction or the future? Trends Neurosci 25:506–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gitelson AA, Buschmann C, Lichtenthaler HK (1999) The chlorophyll fluorescence ratio F735/F700 as an accurate measure of chlorophyll content in plants. Remote Sens Environ 69:296–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gregory PJ, Bengough AG, Grinev D et al (2009) Root phenomics of crops: opportunities and challenges. Funct Plant Biol 36:922–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartmann A, Czauderna T, Hoffmann R et al (2011) HTPheno: an image analysis pipeline for high-throughput plant phenotyping. BMC Bioinformatics 12:148PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoffmann WA, Poorter H (2002) Avoiding bias in calculations of relative growth rate. Annals Bot 90:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hosoi F, Nakabayashi K, Omasa K (2011) 3-D modelling of tomato canopies using a high-resolution portable scanning Lidar for extracting structural information. Sensors 11:2166–2174PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houle D, Govindaraju DR, Omholt S (2010) Phenomics: the next challenge. Nature Rev Genet 11:855–866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jahnke S, Menzel MI, van Dusschoten D et al (2009) Combined MRI-PET dissects dynamic changes in plant structures and functions. Plant J 59:634–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leitner D, Felderer B, Vontobel P et al (2014) Recovering root system traits using image analysis exemplified by two-dimensional neutron radiography images of lupine. Plant Physiol 164:24–35PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ling Q, Huang W, Jarvis P (2011) Use of a SPAD-502 meter to measure leaf chlorophyll concentration in Arabidopsis thaliana. Photosynth Res 107:209–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lobet G, Pagès L, Draye X (2011) A novel image-analysis toolbox enabling quantitative analysis of root system architecture. Plant Physiol 157:29–39PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lumme J, Karjalainen M, Kaartinen H et al (2008) Terrestrial laser scanning of agricultural crops. Int Arch Photogram Remote Sens Spat Inform Sci (Beijing) 37B:563–566Google Scholar
  25. Maxwell K, Johnson GN (2000) Chlorophyll fluorescence – a practical guide. J Exp Bot 51:659–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mielewczik M, Friedli M, Kirchgessner N et al (2013) Diel leaf growth of soybean: a novel method to analyze two-dimensional leaf expansion in high temporal resolution based on a marker tracking approach (Martrack Leaf). Plant Methods 9:30–42PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Munns R, James RA, Sirault XRR et al (2010) New phenotyping methods for screening wheat and barley for beneficial responses to water deficit. J Exp Bot 61:3499–3507. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq199 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nagel KA, Putz A, Gilmer F et al (2012) GROWSCREEN-Rhizo is a novel phenotyping robot enabling simultaneous measurements of root and shoot growth for plants grown in soil-filled rhizotrons. Funct Plant Biol 39:891–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Normanly J (ed) (2012) High-throughput phenotyping in plants, methods and protocols. Humana, Springer, NYGoogle Scholar
  30. Ollinger SV (2011) Sources of variability in canopy reflectance and the convergent properties of plants. New Phytol 189:375–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Panguluri SK, Kumar AA (eds) (2013) Phenotyping for plant breeding: applications of phenotyping methods for crop improvement. Springer, NYGoogle Scholar
  32. Poorter H, Fiorani F, Stitt M et al (2012) The art of growing plants for experimental purposes: a practical guide for the plant biologist. Funct Plant Biol 39:821–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tessmer OL, Jiao Y, Cruz JA et al (2013) Functional approach to high-throughput plant growth analysis. BMC Syst Biol 7:S17–S29PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Walter A, Studer B, Kolliker R (2012) Advanced phenotyping offers opportunities for improved breeding of forage and turf species. Annals Bot 110:1271–1279. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcs026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. White JW, Andrade-Sanchez P, Gore MA et al (2012) Field-based phenomics for plant genetics research. Field Crops Res 133:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Woo NS, Badger MR, Pogson BJ (2008) A rapid non-invasive procedure for quantitative assessment of drought survival using chlorophyll fluorescence. Plant Methods 4:27–30PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yazdanbakhsh N, Fisahn J (2009) High throughput phenotyping of root growth dynamics, lateral root formation, root architecture and root hair development enabled by PlaRoM. Funct Plant Biol 36:938–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhu Y, Wang Y, Shao M et al (2011) Estimating soil water content from surface digital image gray level measurements under visible spectrum. Can J Soil Sci 91:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. D. Singh
    • 1
  • A. K. Singh
    • 2
  1. 1.School of BiotechnologyBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia
  2. 2.Division of GeneticsIndian Agricultural Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations