Early-life stage phenomic prediction of field agronomic traits across breeding cycles in intermediate wheatgrass
Harris, Z. N.; Braley, J.; Cassetta, E.; Crain, J.; DeHaan, L.; Van Tassel, D.; Miller, A.; Rubin, M. J.
Show abstract
Perennial grains represent a promising frontier for sustainable agriculture, but breeding progress is constrained by the accessibility of genotyping and the difficulty of evaluating complex traits expressed for multiple years after establishment across heterogeneous environments. Phenomic selection may help address these challenges by using inexpensive, scalable, high-dimensional phenotypes collected early in development, although the robustness of such predictions across breeding cycles remains uncertain. Here, we compared genomic selection and phenomic selection across two breeding cycles of Thinopyrum intermedium (intermediate wheatgrass; IWG; Kernza(R)), comprising approximately 2,280 individuals from maternal half-sib families evaluated across multiple field sites and years. We constructed relationship matrices from genomic markers and early-life stage phenomic data, including seed and leaf color (HSV), CropReporter multispectral reflectance and indices, and cycle-specific hyperspectral reflectance sensors. Genomic models provided the strongest predictions on average across all field traits in both cycles. Among phenomic predictors, leaf HSV was consistently the most informative, whereas CropReporter and hyperspectral data showed lower and more trait-dependent performance and seed HSV provided little predictive value. Genomic, leaf HSV, and CropReporter models transferred across breeding cycles with little apparent loss of predictive ability relative to within-cycle validation, demonstrating that their predictive signals were not restricted to a single breeding cycle. Early-life stage leaf HSV emerged as a practical, accessible tool for germplasm thinning and early-stage prioritization in perennial breeding programs. Despite limited similarity among relationship matrices, multi-relationship-matrix models rarely improved prediction beyond the stronger constituent single-relationship-matrix model. Together, these results show that early-life stage phenomic data provide reproducible information about agronomic performance expressed years later, but that predictor complexity and data integration do not guarantee improved prediction.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Leveraging genomics and temporal high-throughput phenotyping to enhance association mapping and yield prediction in sesame 95%
- Genomic and Phenomic Prediction for Soybean Seed Yield, Protein, and Oil 94%
- Effectiveness of Genomic Selection by Response to Selection for Winter Wheat Variety Improvement 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Image-based phenomic prediction can provide valuable decision support in wheat breeding 95%
- Major effect loci for plant size before onset of nitrogen fixation allow accurate prediction of yield in white clover 94%
- New loci and candidate genes in spring two-rowed barley detected through meta-analysis of a field trial European network 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Higher adaxial stomatal density is associated with lower grain yield in spring wheat 93%
- Extensive photophysiological variation in wild barley is linked to environmental origin 93%
- Functional phenomics and genetics of the root economics space in winter wheat using high-throughput phenotyping of respiration and architecture 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Phenomic vs Genomic Prediction - A Comparison of Prediction Accuracies for Grain Yield in Hard Winter Wheat Lines 96%
- Data driven discovery and quantification of hyperspectral leaf reflectance phenotypes across a maize diversity panel 93%
- Off-the-shelf image analysis models outperform human visual assessment in identifying genes controlling seed color variation in sorghum 93%
"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.