What is cost-efficient phenotyping? Optimizing costs for different scenarios

Abstract

25Progress in remote sensing and robotic technologies decreases the hardware costs of 26 phenotyping. Here, we first review cost-effective imaging devices and environmental sensors, 27 and present a trade-off between investment and manpower costs. We then discuss the structure 28 of costs in various real-world scenarios. Hand-held low-cost sensors are suitable for quick and 29 infrequent plant diagnostic measurements. In experiments for genetic or agronomic analyses, (i) 30 major costs arise from plant handling and manpower; (ii) the total costs per pot/microplot are 31 similar in robotized platform or field experiments with drones, hand-held or robotized ground 32 vehicles; (iii) the cost of vehicles carrying sensors represents only 5-26% of the total costs. These 33 conclusions depend on the context, in particular for labor cost, the quantitative demand of 34 phenotyping and the number of days available for phenotypic measurements due to climatic 35 constraints. Data analysis represents 10-20% of total cost if pipelines have already been 36 developed. A trade-off exists between the initial high cost of pipeline development and labor cost 37 of manual operations. Overall, depending on the context and objectives, "cost-effective" 38 phenotyping may involve either low investment ("affordable phenotyping"), or initial high 39 investments in sensors, vehicles and pipelines that result in higher quality and lower operational 40 costs. 41 Highlights 42 -New technologies considerably reduce the costs of sensors and automated vehicles 43 -Low investment in sensors, vehicles or pipelines present trade-offs with labor costs 44 -Plant/plot handling and labor costs represent the major proportion of costs in phenotyping 45 experiments 46 -The costs of high-throughput experiments in the field and in automated platforms is similar 47 regardless of vehicles 48 -The development of software applications (e.g. imaging, phenotypic analyses, models, 49 information system) is a major part of costs 50 51 52 54 I Imaging techniques with a range of hardware costs 55 1.1 Handheld phenotyping technologies 56 1.2 Aerial imaging for large-scale phenotyping 57 1.3 Imaging with ground vehicles 58 1.4 Environmental measurements 59 II Costs associated with image capture represent a fraction of the overall cost of phenotyping 60 2.1 A method for calculating costs in field and greenhouse platforms 61 2.2 A high cost for plant management 62 2.3 Investing in appropriate environmental characterization results in comparatively low cost 63 for a high return 64 2.4 Imaging costs: a trade-off between investment and labor costs 65 2.4.1 The choice of vehicle mostly depends on the demand for microplots per year 66 2.4.2 The cost of imaging devices is similar to that of vehicles that carry sensors 67 2.5 Costs of typical experiments 68 2.5.1 Image analysis: a tradeoff between investment in automated workflows and day-to-day 69 labor costs 70 2.5.2 High costs for data analysis for the identification of traits 71 2.5.3 Costs associated with data storag...

Drought phenotyping in Vitis vinifera using RGB and NIR imaging

“…RGB and NIR sensors have been used in this study confirming that easily accessible sensors might support possible implementation of affordable phenotyping (sensu Reynolds et al, 2018) and assist in developing new tools for precision irrigation in a HTP domain.…”

Image-Based Assessment of Drought Response in Grapevines

“…Noticeably, addition of the 45 • SV pixels allowed a model performance as high as in Briglia et al (2019) likely because of higher canopy density. Lack of comparable standards and protocols across platforms is a critical issue for the phenotyping community (Reynolds et al, 2019;Rosenqvist et al, 2019). Hence, the present results might support the harmonization and standardization of protocols among HTP facilities (Reynolds et al, 2019).…”

Using Ground and UAV Vegetation Indexes for the Selection of Fungal-Resistant Bread Wheat Varieties

“…The generation of new wheat varieties using HTPPs may also provide a more costeffective approach [14]. In the current study sites, in spite of the fact that treated plants performed far better than untreated ones, there were also cases when a lack of effect of fungicide or even a negative effect were evidenced, for example, when plotting the ratios for GY and the vegetation indexes between the treated and untreated across the set of advanced lines.…”