Back

Destructive harvest validation of high-throughput measurements show that water use efficiency is unaffected by moderate drought in tobacco

Stutz, S. S.; Edquilang, R.; Bernacchi, C. J.; Ort, D. R.

2026-08-31 plant biology
10.64898/2026.08.28.747842 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Water-use efficiency (WUE), the ratio of accumulated plant biomass to water lost through transpiration has conventionally been determined using a destructive single-point measurement. Recent advances in high-throughput phenotyping now enable repeated, non-destructive estimation of biomass and WUE. However, these digital measurements must be statistically validated against conventional destructive methods to validate their use as reliable proxies. Therefore, we compared digital biomass determined point clouds produced from multispectral camera scanners with destructive harvests across eight harvests using Samsun tobacco grown under both drought and high-water conditions. WUE efficiency, calculated using the digital biomass estimated from a point cloud and gravimetric water use determinations, were compared to destructive harvest determinations. The coefficient of variation (CV) showed there were no significant differences in digital and destructive measurements for either biomass or WUE. Indicating that digital measurements can be used in place of destructive measurements. Drought plants used significantly less water and were significantly smaller than high-water plants from Harvests 4 through 8. However, there were no significant differences in the ratio of evapotranspiration to leaf area or WUE, indicating that drought plants were simply smaller and used less water than the high-water plants. This work validates that estimating plant biomass from a digital point coupled with continuous gravimetric determination of water use provides a reliable nondestructive measure of WUE in high-throughput measurements across the full plant life cycle.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.