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

Daniel Reynolds, Frederic Baret, Claude Welcker, Aaron Bostrom, Joshua Ball, Francesco Cellini, Argelia Lorence, Aakash Chawade, Mehdi Khafif, Koji Noshita, Mark Mueller-Linow, Ji Zhou, François Tardieu

研究成果: ジャーナルへの寄稿記事

14 引用 (Scopus)

抄録

Progress in remote sensing and robotic technologies decreases the hardware costs of phenotyping. Here, we first review cost-effective imaging devices and environmental sensors, and present a trade-off between investment and manpower costs. We then discuss the structure of costs in various real-world scenarios. Hand-held low-cost sensors are suitable for quick and infrequent plant diagnostic measurements. In experiments for genetic or agronomic analyses, (i) major costs arise from plant handling and manpower; (ii) the total costs per plant/microplot are similar in robotized platform or field experiments with drones, hand-held or robotized ground vehicles; (iii) the cost of vehicles carrying sensors represents only 5–26% of the total costs. These conclusions depend on the context, in particular for labor cost, the quantitative demand of phenotyping and the number of days available for phenotypic measurements due to climatic constraints. Data analysis represents 10–20% of total cost if pipelines have already been developed. A trade-off exists between the initial high cost of pipeline development and labor cost of manual operations. Overall, depending on the context and objsectives, “cost-effective” phenotyping may involve either low investment (“affordable phenotyping”), or initial high investments in sensors, vehicles and pipelines that result in higher quality and lower operational costs.

元の言語英語
ページ(範囲)14-22
ページ数9
ジャーナルPlant Science
282
DOI
出版物ステータス出版済み - 5 1 2019

Fingerprint

sensors (equipment)
phenotype
Costs and Cost Analysis
labor
hands
remote sensing
data analysis
image analysis
Remote Sensing Technology
Hand
Robotics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Genetics
  • Agronomy and Crop Science
  • Plant Science

これを引用

Reynolds, D., Baret, F., Welcker, C., Bostrom, A., Ball, J., Cellini, F., ... Tardieu, F. (2019). What is cost-efficient phenotyping? Optimizing costs for different scenarios. Plant Science, 282, 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.06.015

What is cost-efficient phenotyping? Optimizing costs for different scenarios. / Reynolds, Daniel; Baret, Frederic; Welcker, Claude; Bostrom, Aaron; Ball, Joshua; Cellini, Francesco; Lorence, Argelia; Chawade, Aakash; Khafif, Mehdi; Noshita, Koji; Mueller-Linow, Mark; Zhou, Ji; Tardieu, François.

:: Plant Science, 巻 282, 01.05.2019, p. 14-22.

研究成果: ジャーナルへの寄稿記事

Reynolds, D, Baret, F, Welcker, C, Bostrom, A, Ball, J, Cellini, F, Lorence, A, Chawade, A, Khafif, M, Noshita, K, Mueller-Linow, M, Zhou, J & Tardieu, F 2019, 'What is cost-efficient phenotyping? Optimizing costs for different scenarios', Plant Science, 巻. 282, pp. 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.06.015
Reynolds D, Baret F, Welcker C, Bostrom A, Ball J, Cellini F その他. What is cost-efficient phenotyping? Optimizing costs for different scenarios. Plant Science. 2019 5 1;282:14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.06.015
Reynolds, Daniel ; Baret, Frederic ; Welcker, Claude ; Bostrom, Aaron ; Ball, Joshua ; Cellini, Francesco ; Lorence, Argelia ; Chawade, Aakash ; Khafif, Mehdi ; Noshita, Koji ; Mueller-Linow, Mark ; Zhou, Ji ; Tardieu, François. / What is cost-efficient phenotyping? Optimizing costs for different scenarios. :: Plant Science. 2019 ; 巻 282. pp. 14-22.
@article{63ecd525081742b4a0c3acf10e69d6f8,
title = "What is cost-efficient phenotyping? Optimizing costs for different scenarios",
abstract = "Progress in remote sensing and robotic technologies decreases the hardware costs of phenotyping. Here, we first review cost-effective imaging devices and environmental sensors, and present a trade-off between investment and manpower costs. We then discuss the structure of costs in various real-world scenarios. Hand-held low-cost sensors are suitable for quick and infrequent plant diagnostic measurements. In experiments for genetic or agronomic analyses, (i) major costs arise from plant handling and manpower; (ii) the total costs per plant/microplot are similar in robotized platform or field experiments with drones, hand-held or robotized ground vehicles; (iii) the cost of vehicles carrying sensors represents only 5–26{\%} of the total costs. These conclusions depend on the context, in particular for labor cost, the quantitative demand of phenotyping and the number of days available for phenotypic measurements due to climatic constraints. Data analysis represents 10–20{\%} of total cost if pipelines have already been developed. A trade-off exists between the initial high cost of pipeline development and labor cost of manual operations. Overall, depending on the context and objsectives, “cost-effective” phenotyping may involve either low investment (“affordable phenotyping”), or initial high investments in sensors, vehicles and pipelines that result in higher quality and lower operational costs.",
author = "Daniel Reynolds and Frederic Baret and Claude Welcker and Aaron Bostrom and Joshua Ball and Francesco Cellini and Argelia Lorence and Aakash Chawade and Mehdi Khafif and Koji Noshita and Mark Mueller-Linow and Ji Zhou and Fran{\cc}ois Tardieu",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.06.015",
language = "English",
volume = "282",
pages = "14--22",
journal = "Plant Science",
issn = "0168-9452",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What is cost-efficient phenotyping? Optimizing costs for different scenarios

AU - Reynolds, Daniel

AU - Baret, Frederic

AU - Welcker, Claude

AU - Bostrom, Aaron

AU - Ball, Joshua

AU - Cellini, Francesco

AU - Lorence, Argelia

AU - Chawade, Aakash

AU - Khafif, Mehdi

AU - Noshita, Koji

AU - Mueller-Linow, Mark

AU - Zhou, Ji

AU - Tardieu, François

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - Progress in remote sensing and robotic technologies decreases the hardware costs of phenotyping. Here, we first review cost-effective imaging devices and environmental sensors, and present a trade-off between investment and manpower costs. We then discuss the structure of costs in various real-world scenarios. Hand-held low-cost sensors are suitable for quick and infrequent plant diagnostic measurements. In experiments for genetic or agronomic analyses, (i) major costs arise from plant handling and manpower; (ii) the total costs per plant/microplot are similar in robotized platform or field experiments with drones, hand-held or robotized ground vehicles; (iii) the cost of vehicles carrying sensors represents only 5–26% of the total costs. These conclusions depend on the context, in particular for labor cost, the quantitative demand of phenotyping and the number of days available for phenotypic measurements due to climatic constraints. Data analysis represents 10–20% of total cost if pipelines have already been developed. A trade-off exists between the initial high cost of pipeline development and labor cost of manual operations. Overall, depending on the context and objsectives, “cost-effective” phenotyping may involve either low investment (“affordable phenotyping”), or initial high investments in sensors, vehicles and pipelines that result in higher quality and lower operational costs.

AB - Progress in remote sensing and robotic technologies decreases the hardware costs of phenotyping. Here, we first review cost-effective imaging devices and environmental sensors, and present a trade-off between investment and manpower costs. We then discuss the structure of costs in various real-world scenarios. Hand-held low-cost sensors are suitable for quick and infrequent plant diagnostic measurements. In experiments for genetic or agronomic analyses, (i) major costs arise from plant handling and manpower; (ii) the total costs per plant/microplot are similar in robotized platform or field experiments with drones, hand-held or robotized ground vehicles; (iii) the cost of vehicles carrying sensors represents only 5–26% of the total costs. These conclusions depend on the context, in particular for labor cost, the quantitative demand of phenotyping and the number of days available for phenotypic measurements due to climatic constraints. Data analysis represents 10–20% of total cost if pipelines have already been developed. A trade-off exists between the initial high cost of pipeline development and labor cost of manual operations. Overall, depending on the context and objsectives, “cost-effective” phenotyping may involve either low investment (“affordable phenotyping”), or initial high investments in sensors, vehicles and pipelines that result in higher quality and lower operational costs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051008045&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85051008045&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.06.015

DO - 10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.06.015

M3 - Article

C2 - 31003607

AN - SCOPUS:85051008045

VL - 282

SP - 14

EP - 22

JO - Plant Science

JF - Plant Science

SN - 0168-9452

ER -