Machine Learning for High-Throughput Stress Phenotyping in Plants.

By Arti Singh, Baskar Ganapathysubramanian, Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Soumik Sarkar. Trends in Plant Science, 2016

928 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Advances in automated and high-throughput imaging technologies have resulted in a deluge of high-resolution images and sensor data of plants. However, extracting patterns and features from this large corpus of data requires the use of machine learning (ML) tools to enable data assimilation and feature identification for stress phenotyping. Four stages of the decision cycle in plant stress phenotyping and plant breeding activities where different ML approaches can be deployed are (i) identification, (ii) classification, (iii) quantification, and (iv) prediction (ICQP). We provide here a comprehensive overview and user-friendly taxonomy of ML tools to enable the plant community to correctly and easily apply the appropriate ML tools and best-practice guidelines for various biotic and abiotic stress traits.

Subfields: Analytical Chemistry, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a09a9f69ff145508a12e6dbb81ccd7f5be4bd2fc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Analytical Chemistry

  1. Andrew P. French
  2. N. Harrison
  3. Amy Lowe
  4. Tyr Wiesner-Hanks
  5. Chunjiang Zhao
  6. Rebecca J. Nelson
  7. Hod Lipson
  8. Siyuan Chen

In Plant Science

  1. Ian Stavness
  2. Jordan R. Ubbens
  3. Andrew P. French
  4. N. Harrison
  5. Amy Lowe
  6. Sharada Prasanna Mohanty
  7. Jill E. Cairns
  8. David P. Hughes

Citations in the corpus