AOBPreview originally published online on December 7, 2006
Annals of Botany 2007 99(1):61-73; doi:10.1093/aob/mcl245
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter Stability of the Functional–Structural Plant Model GREENLAB as Affected by Variation within Populations, among Seasons and among Growth Stages
1 Key Laboratory of Plant–Soil Interactions, Ministry of Education, College of Resources and Environment, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100094, China
2 Cirad-amis, TA 40/01 Ave Agropolis, 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
3 INRIA-Rocquencourt, BP 105, 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France
* For correspondence. E-mail dingkuhn{at}cirad.fr
Received: 11 July 2006 Returned for revision: 30 August 2006 Accepted: 4 October 2006 Published electronically: 7 December 2006
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It is increasingly accepted that crop models, if they are to simulate genotype-specific behaviour accurately, should simulate the morphogenetic process generating plant architecture. A functional–structural plant model, GREENLAB, was previously presented and validated for maize. The model is based on a recursive mathematical process, with parameters whose values cannot be measured directly and need to be optimized statistically. This study aims at evaluating the stability of GREENLAB parameters in response to three types of phenotype variability: (1) among individuals from a common population; (2) among populations subjected to different environments (seasons); and (3) among different development stages of the same plants.
METHODS: Five field experiments were conducted in the course of 4 years on irrigated fields near Beijing, China. Detailed observations were conducted throughout the seasons on the dimensions and fresh biomass of all above-ground plant organs for each metamer. Growth stage-specific target files were assembled from the data for GREENLAB parameter optimization. Optimization was conducted for specific developmental stages or the entire growth cycle, for individual plants (replicates), and for different seasons. Parameter stability was evaluated by comparing their CV with that of phenotype observation for the different sources of variability. A reduced data set was developed for easier model parameterization using one season, and validated for the four other seasons.
KEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of parameter stability among plants sharing the same environment and among populations grown in different environments indicated that the model explains some of the inter-seasonal variability of phenotype (parameters varied less than the phenotype itself), but not inter-plant variability (parameter and phenotype variability were similar). Parameter variability among developmental stages was small, indicating that parameter values were largely development-stage independent. The authors suggest that the high level of parameter stability observed in GREENLAB can be used to conduct comparisons among genotypes and, ultimately, genetic analyses.
Key words: Plant architecture, functional–structural models, crop simulation, parameter stability, allometric relationships, sink capacity, Zea mays
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  V. Letort, P. Mahe, P.-H. Cournede, P. de Reffye, and B. Courtois Quantitative Genetics and Functional-Structural Plant Growth Models: Simulation of Quantitative Trait Loci Detection for Model Parameters and Application to Potential Yield Optimization Ann. Bot., May 1, 2008; 101(8): 1243 - 1254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Ma, M. Wen, Y. Guo, B. Li, P.-H. Cournede, and P. de Reffye Parameter Optimization and Field Validation of the Functional-Structural Model GREENLAB for Maize at Different Population Densities Ann. Bot., May 1, 2008; 101(8): 1185 - 1194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q. Dong, G. Louarn, Y. Wang, J.-F. Barczi, and P. de Reffye Does the Structure-Function Model GREENLAB Deal with Crop Phenotypic Plasticity Induced by Plant Spacing? A Case Study on Tomato Ann. Bot., May 1, 2008; 101(8): 1195 - 1206. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|