4.7 Article

Experimental and modeling evidence of carbon limitation of leaf appearance rate for spring and winter wheat

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 70, 期 9, 页码 2449-2462

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erz012

关键词

Carbon; crop model; daylength; leaf appearance rate; photoperiod; photothermal quotient; phyllochron; SiriusQuality; temperature; wheat

资金

  1. French National Research Agency (ANR) through the ERANET + project MODCARBOSTRESS within the Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change (FACCE-JPI) [618105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate predictions of the timing of physiological stages and the development rate are crucial for predicting crop performance under field conditions. Plant development is controlled by the leaf appearance rate (LAR) and our understanding of how LAR responds to environmental factors is still limited. Here, we tested the hypothesis that carbon availability may account for the effects of irradiance, photoperiod, atmospheric CO2 concentration, and ontogeny on LAR. We conducted three experiments in growth chambers to quantify and disentangle these effects for both winter and spring wheat cultivars. Variations of LAR observed between environmental scenarios were well explained by the supply/demand ratio for carbon, quantified using the photothermal quotient. We therefore developed an ecophysiological model based on the photothermal quotient that accounts for the effects of temperature, irradiance, photoperiod, and ontogeny on LAR. Comparisons of observed leaf stages and LAR with simulations from our model, from a linear thermal-time model, and from a segmented linear thermal-time model corrected for sowing date showed that our model can simulate the observed changes in LAR in the field with the lowest error. Our findings demonstrate that a hypothesis-driven approach that incorporates more physiology in specific processes of crop models can increase their predictive power under variable environments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据