Non-invasive imaging of plant roots in different soils using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

Abstract

BackgroundRoot systems are highly plastic and adapt according to their soil environment. Studying the particular influence of soils on root development necessitates the adaptation and evaluation of imaging methods for multiple substrates. Non-invasive 3D root images in soil can be obtained using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Not all substrates, however, are suitable for MRI. Using barley as a model plant we investigated the achievable image quality and the suitability for root phenotyping of six commercially available natural soil substrates of commonly occurring soil textures. The results are compared with two artificially composed substrates previously documented for MRI root imaging.ResultsIn five out of the eight tested substrates, barley lateral roots with diameters below 300 µm could still be resolved. In two other soils, only the thicker barley seminal roots were detectable. For these two substrates the minimal detectable root diameter was between 400 and 500 µm. Only one soil did not allow imaging of the roots with MRI. In the artificially composed substrates, soil moisture above 70% of the maximal water holding capacity (WHCmax) impeded root imaging. For the natural soil substrates, soil moisture had no effect on MRI root image quality in the investigated range of 50–80% WHCmax.ConclusionsAlmost all tested natural soil substrates allowed for root imaging using MRI. Half of these substrates resulted in root images comparable to our current lab standard substrate, allowing root detection down to a diameter of 300 µm. These soils were used as supplied by the vendor and, in particular, removal of ferromagnetic particles was not necessary. With the characterization of different soils, investigations such as trait stability across substrates are now possible using noninvasive MRI.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13007-017-0252-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Crop Phenomics and High-Throughput Phenotyping: Past Decades, Current Challenges, and Future Perspectives

“…3Signal deterioration due to soil structure and water content is lower for PET than for MRI and CT, and a high soil water content affects CT more than MRI (Jahnke et al, 2009). In addition, soil with high sand and low clay (or silt) content yielded better image quality for both MRI and CT (Pflugfelder et al, 2017). (4) Finally, the time requirements for both PET scanning (R60 min) and MRI scanning (approximately 40-60 min) are generally greater than those for CT, which means that it would be difficult to use MRI and PET for phenotyping populations on a large scale, as required for genetic studies (Jahnke et al, 2009;Metzner et al, 2015).…”

Crop Improvement from Phenotyping Roots: Highlights Reveal Expanding Opportunities

“…Phenotyping in 4D can be done with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), X-ray computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) [38]. These technologies can measure root growth in different soil types and in undisturbed soil cores [39][40][41], and in response to phosphorus [42] and water [43]. Activation of meristematic activity in adventitious root development [23] ( Figure 2B) and branch roots [44] have been quantified with MRI, and 11 C allocation in roots was detected with PET and co-registered with MRI images of the same plants [45].…”

An Ultra-Wideband Frequency System for Non-Destructive Root Imaging

“…The lack of reliable information on growing environments and individual plant measurements has bottlenecked advancements in improving crop yield [ 7 , 8 ]. Narrowing the issue further, the non-destructive collection of accurate data on roots, a complicated organ that is critical in the development of the plant, has proven to be a significant challenge that severely inhibits plant phenotyping research [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. The challenge of characterizing plant roots comes with the hidden nature of the roots as they are concealed by the medium they are grown in, often needing destructive methods of measuring root development [ 14 ].…”

“…Studies often required expensive rental time on third party MRI machines. Moreover, MRI has difficulties imaging roots uncontrolled soil conditions [ 10 , 13 ].…”