Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32180825›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2020

Smoothing and extraction of traits in the growth analysis of noninvasive phenotypic data.

Chris Brien, Nathaniel Jewell, Stephanie J Watts-Williams, Trevor Garnett, Bettina Berger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Chris Brien1The Plant Accelerator, Australian Plant Phenomics Facility, The University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, SA 5064 Australia.
Nathaniel Jewell1The Plant Accelerator, Australian Plant Phenomics Facility, The University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, SA 5064 Australia.
Stephanie J Watts-Williams2School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, SA 5064 Australia.
Trevor Garnett1The Plant Accelerator, Australian Plant Phenomics Facility, The University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, SA 5064 Australia.
Bettina Berger1The Plant Accelerator, Australian Plant Phenomics Facility, The University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, SA 5064 Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-destructive high-throughput plant phenotyping is becoming increasingly used and various methods for growth analysis have been proposed. Traditional longitudinal or repeated measures analyses that model growth using statistical models are common. However, often the variation in the data is inappropriately modelled, in part because the required models are complicated and difficult to fit. We provide a novel, computationally efficient technique that is based on smoothing and extraction of traits (SET), which we compare with the alternative traditional longitudinal analysis methods.

resultsThe SET-based and longitudinal analyses were applied to a tomato experiment to investigate the effects on plant growth of zinc (Zn) addition and growing plants in soil inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). Conclusions from the SET-based and longitudinal analyses are similar, although the former analysis results in more significant differences. They showed that added Zn had little effect on plants grown in inoculated soils, but that growth depended on the amount of added Zn for plants grown in uninoculated soils. The longitudinal analysis of the unsmoothed data fitted a mixed model that involved both fixed and random regression modelling with splines, as well as allowing for unequal variances and autocorrelation between time points.

conclusionsA SET-based analysis can be used in any situation in which a traditional longitudinal analysis might be applied, especially when there are many observed time points. Two reasons for deploying the SET-based method are (i) biologically relevant growth parameters are required that parsimoniously describe growth, usually focussing on a small number of intervals, and/or (ii) a computationally efficient method is required for which a valid analysis is easier to achieve, while still capturing the essential features of the exhibited growth dynamics. Also discussed are the statistical models that need to be considered for traditional longitudinal analyses and it is demonstrated that the oft-omitted unequal variances and autocorrelation may be required for a valid longitudinal analysis. With respect to the separate issue of the subjective choice of mathematical growth functions or splines to characterize growth, it is recommended that, for both SET-based and longitudinal analyses, an evidence-based procedure is adopted.

Indexed as

Functional analysisGreenhouse experimentsGrowth analysisGrowth traitsHigh-throughput phenotypingLongitudinal analysisRandom regression modellingTomato

Identifiers

PMID32180825
PMCPMC7065360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.