Table 1.

Performance comparison of plant phenotypic information collection platforms.

Phenotypic platform	Platform name	Research and development unit	Platform type	Advantages	Limitations	Scanning scale	Practical application
Ground-based Platform	Crop Observer	PhenoVation, Netherlands company	Conveyor belt	Real-time measurement of photosynthetic efficiency, estimation of soil coverage by plant leaves	More suitable for indoor work	1–10 m2	Experiments in a test field at Wageningen University in the Netherlands
	Field Scan	PhenoVation, Pheno Spex company	Gantry type	Not affected by the environment, the efficiency can reach 5,000 plants/h, and the measurement can be repeated every day	High cost, only a fixed area can be observed	10–50 m2	Applied to the field phenotyping platform built by Nanjing Agricultural University in 2018
	Field Scanalyzer	Germany, Lemna Tec company	Gantry type	With walking device, automatic control module of mechanical movement, high-precision sensor array, supporting data acquisition and analysis software	High cost, only a fixed area can be observed		Procurement by scientific research institutions such as French Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences and DuPont Pioneer (Virlet et al., 2016)
	Breed Vision	University of Applied Technology, Osnabruck, Germany	Gantry type	Mobile darkroom (moving speed 0.5 m/s), equipped with 3D depth camera, color camera, laser ranging sensor, light screen imaging Settings and other optical equipment	High cost, only a fixed area can be observed	1–10 m2	University of Applied Technology, Osnabruck (Busemeyer et al., 2013)
	Spidercam	University of Nebraska-Lincoln	Suspended cable	Covering a field of 4,000 m2, a variety of sensors can be mounted on the suspension cable platform	High cost, only a fixed area can be observed	50–100 m2	Test field use at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in 2017 (Ge et al., 2019)
	ETH	Swiss ETH Field Phenotyping Platform	Suspended cable	Suspended various sensors	High cost, only a fixed area can be observed	100–1,000 m2	ETH plant research station Lindau-Eschikon (Kirchgessner et al., 2016)
	Field Scanalyzer	UK, Rothamsted Research Centre	Suspended cable	Equipped with a variety of sensors, the applicability is strong, the system runs smoothly, and is less affected by external interference	High investment cost, high operation and maintenance costs, not suitable for large breeding areas	50–100 m2	/
	Phenotyping Robot	USA, Iowa State University	Self-propelled	Multiple stereo cameras trigger synchronously, and multiple sets of stereo lenses are superimposed to ensure phenotypic analysis of tall crops	No commercial solution, need to design independently	1–10 m2	Used in the experimental field of Iowa State University in 2014
	GPheno Vision	University of Georgia	Vehicle	Low cost, can be equipped with a variety of sensors	Fuel power, larger vibration, wider tires, and requirements for row spacing		In 2017, it was used in the experimental field of the University of Georgia, USA (Jiang et al., 2018)
Air-based Platform	Helipod	CSIRO	UAV	Equipped with thermal imager and RGB camera to obtain canopy temperature and RGB images	Limited load capacity, regulated altitude, short flight time, and affected by the environment	100–2,000 m2	Intensive phenotyping experiments in Canberra, Australia
	LiAir	Beijing Digital Green Earth Technology Co., Ltd.		Wide field of vision, daily measurement 2 km2			In 2012, it has been applied to the field of agroforestry phenotyping
Space-based Platform	The Pleiades−1A and Worldview-3	/	Satellite	The detection area is the largest, which is convenient for macro-control	Highest cost, relatively low accuracy, only suitable for large area inspection	>10,000 m2	Disease and Crop Water Stress Detection

ETH, Ethiopia; UK, Britain; CSIRO, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; UAV, unmanned aerial vehicle.

The short line (-) indicates that the platform is not mentioned in the article.