The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Direct Comparison of Remote Sensing Approaches for High-Throughput Phenotyping in Plant Breeding
Open accessAbstract
Remote sensing (RS) of plant canopies permits non-intrusive, high-throughput monitoring of plant physiological characteristics. This study compared three RS approaches using a low flying UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle), with that of proximal sensing, and satellite-based imagery. Two physiological traits were considered, canopy temperature (CT) and a vegetation index (NDVI), to determine the most viable approaches for large scale crop genetic improvement. The UAV-based platform achieves plot-level resolution while measuring several hundred plots in one mission via high-resolution thermal and multispectral imagery measured at altitudes of 30-100 m. The satellite measures multispectral imagery from an altitude of 770 km. Information was compared with proximal measurements using IR thermometers and an NDVI sensor at a distance of 0.5-1 m above plots. For robust comparisons, CT and NDVI were assessed on panels of elite cultivars under irrigated and drought conditions, in different thermal regimes, and on un-adapted genetic resources under water deficit. Correlations between airborne data and yield/biomass at maturity were generally higher than equivalent proximal correlations. NDVI was derived from high-resolution satellite imagery for only larger sized plots (8.5 × 2.4 m) due to restricted pixel density. Results support use of UAV-based RS techniques for high-throughput phenotyping for both precision and efficiency.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Field high-throughput phenotyping: the new crop breeding frontier
Araus, J. L., & Cairns, J. E. (2014) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2013.09.008 · Cited by 1,817 · cited 4×
“…Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria Anyela Valentina Camargo Rodriguez, Aberystwyth University, UK *Correspondence: Matthew P. Reynolds m.reynolds@cgiar.org Specialty section: This article was submitted to Crop Science and Horticulture, a section of the journal Frontiers in…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Cited by
Plant Phenomics, From Sensors to Knowledge
Tardieu, F., Cabrera-Bosquet, L., Pridmore, T., & Bennett, M. (2017) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.055 · Cited by 614
Barbedo, J. (2019) · Drones · doi:10.3390/drones3020040 · Cited by 391
META-R: A software to analyze data from multi-environment plant breeding trials
Alvarado, G., Rodríguez, F. M., Pacheco, A., Burgueño, J., Crossa, J., Vargas, M., Pérez-Rodríguez, P., & Lopez-Cruz, M. A. (2020) · The Crop Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cj.2020.03.010 · Cited by 361
Dynamic monitoring of NDVI in wheat agronomy and breeding trials using an unmanned aerial vehicle
Duan, T., Chapman, S. C., Guo, Y., & Zheng, B. (2017) · Field Crops Research · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2017.05.025 · Cited by 282
Self-citationKyratzis, A. C., Skarlatos, D. P., Menexes, G. C., Vamvakousis, V. F., & Katsiotis, A. (2017) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.01114 · Cited by 134
Metadata
- Authors
- Tattaris, M., Reynolds, M. P., & Chapman, S. C.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Plant Science
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2016-08-03
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 1131-1131
- ISSN
- 1664-462X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2495898644
- Cited by
- 295
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Direct Comparison of Remote Sensing Approaches for High-Throughput Phenotyping in Plant Breeding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpls.2016.01131
- The paper
- Tattaris, M., Reynolds, M. P., & Chapman, S. C. (2016). A Direct Comparison of Remote Sensing Approaches for High-Throughput Phenotyping in Plant Breeding. Frontiers in Plant Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01131
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.