↓ Skip to main content

Automated phenotyping of plant shoots using imaging methods for analysis of plant stress responses – a review

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
344 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Automated phenotyping of plant shoots using imaging methods for analysis of plant stress responses – a review
Published in
Plant Methods, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13007-015-0072-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan F Humplík, Dušan Lazár, Alexandra Husičková, Lukáš Spíchal

Abstract

Current methods of in-house plant phenotyping are providing a powerful new tool for plant biology studies. The self-constructed and commercial platforms established in the last few years, employ non-destructive methods and measurements on a large and high-throughput scale. The platforms offer to certain extent, automated measurements, using either simple single sensor analysis, or advanced integrative simultaneous analysis by multiple sensors. However, due to the complexity of the approaches used, it is not always clear what such forms of plant phenotyping can offer the potential end-user, i.e. plant biologist. This review focuses on imaging methods used in the phenotyping of plant shoots including a brief survey of the sensors used. To open up this topic to a broader audience, we provide here a simple introduction to the principles of automated non-destructive analysis, namely RGB, chlorophyll fluorescence, thermal and hyperspectral imaging. We further on present an overview on how and to which extent, the automated integrative in-house phenotyping platforms have been used recently to study the responses of plants to various changing environments.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 344 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Czechia 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 333 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 83 24%
Researcher 66 19%
Student > Master 57 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 52 15%
Unknown 46 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 186 54%
Engineering 29 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 7%
Environmental Science 11 3%
Computer Science 11 3%
Other 25 7%
Unknown 59 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 December 2015.
All research outputs
#5,895,955
of 6,882,666 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#209
of 222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,739
of 297,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#23
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,882,666 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.