Post on 25-Jan-2023
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
A photothermal model of leaf area index for greenhouse crops
R. Xu a, J. Dai a, W. Luo a,*, X. Yin b, Y. Li a, X. Tai a, L. Han a, Y. Chen a, L. Lin a, G. Li a, C. Zou a, W. Du a, M. Diao a
a College of Agriculture, Nanjing Agricultural University, No.1 Rd Weigang, Nanjing Jiangsu 210095, PR Chinab Centre for Crop Systems Analysis, Department of Plant Sciences, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, Netherlands
1. Introduction
Leaf area index (LAI) is one of the most important cropparameters that determine radiation intercepted by the cropcanopy, and therefore has strong impacts for the calculation ofcrop canopy photosynthesis (which in turn affects the CO2 balanceinside a greenhouse) and transpiration (which in turn affectsenergy and water balances inside a greenhouse). Measuring ormodelling LAI is either time-consuming and/or complicated andrequires special equipment and skills which hampers their use incommercial production settings (Serdar and Demirsoy, 2006). Inthe existing photosynthesis-driven greenhouse crop models, LAIis calculated using either SLA (Dayan et al., 1993; Heuvelink, 1996;Gijzen et al., 1998) or growing degree days (GDD) (Marcelis andGijzen, 1998). Crop leaf growth is not only affected by tempera-ture, but also by photosynthetically active radiation (PAR)
(Heuvelink and Marcelis, 1996). Since temperature inside thegreenhouse, especially when the greenhouse has to be heated andcooled or when there is artificial supplementary light inside thegreenhouse, does not follow solar radiation as closely as for a fieldcrop, using GDD to predict crop leaf area for greenhouse growncrops does not give as good predictive results as it does for fieldgrown crops (Marcelis et al., 1998). When using SLA to estimatecrop leaf area, SLA is usually assumed to be a constant (Lieth andPasian, 1991) or simulated as a function of plant age (Leutscherand Vogelezang, 1990) or season (Heuvelink, 1996). Since thesimulated LAI is very sensitive to SLA which is strongly influencedby crop developmental stage and water, nitrogen and radiationlevels, small error in predicting SLA values can result inunacceptable error for simulating LAI and crop biomass produc-tion (e.g. Kropff et al., 1994; Yin et al., 2000). In addition, SLA canonly be obtained by destructive measurements. This limits theapplication of SLA-based model to greenhouse crop and climatemanagement, because of limited available plant material relativeto that of field crops. A model for predicting LAI based on easilyobtained morphological traits of leaves such as the number of
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 541–552
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 12 May 2009
Received in revised form 17 January 2010
Accepted 25 January 2010
Keywords:
Temperature
PAR
Leaf elongation rate
Leaf area index
Leaf rank
A B S T R A C T
Leaf area index (LAI) is an important variable for modelling canopy photosynthesis and crop water use. In
many crop simulation models, prediction of LAI is very sensitive to errors in the value of parameter
‘‘specific leaf area’’ (SLA), which often relies on destructive measurements to determine. In this study, we
present a model for predicting LAI of greenhouse crops based on the quantification of easily measured
morphological traits as affected by temperature and radiation. Our model predicts LAI based on canopy
light interception as a function of node development rate along with specific leaf size and elongation
rates characteristics defined on a leaf number basis. Growth studies with five greenhouse crops
(cucumber, sweet pepper, chrysanthemum, tulip and lilium) were conducted in different greenhouses
and different sites during 2003 to 2009. The model was evaluated, in comparison with two commonly
used methods for predicting LAI – the growing degree days (GDD) based model and SLA based model,
using independent data from other experiments. The coefficient of determination (r2) and the root mean
squared error (RMSE) between the predicted and measured values using our photothermal method are
0.99 and 0.95 (r2, RMSE) for leaf number, 0.98 and 0.01 m for specific leaf length, and 0.98 and
0.13 m2 m�2 for canopy LAI. For the GDD-based model, the r2 and RMSE are 0.93 and 4.23, 0.82 and
0.04 m, 0.87 and 0.48 m2 m�2 for the three traits, respectively. For the SLA-based model, the r2 and RMSE
for canopy LAI is 0.81 and 1.24 m2 m�2 when using the estimated SLA data as input or 0.94 and
0.25 m2 m�2 when using the measured SLA data as input. So, our model better predicts LAI for
greenhouse crops at different latitudes and a range of planting densities and pruning systems. Although
calibrations for specific light regime, pruning practices and cultivars are needed, the fact that production
conditions in commercial greenhouse production are often well controlled and production practices are
often rather standardized implies a general applicability of our model.
� 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 25 84399100; fax: +86 25 84399100.
E-mail address: lwh@njau.edu.cn (W. Luo).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
journal homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /agr formet
0168-1923/$ – see front matter � 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.01.019
Author's personal copy
leaves per plant and the length of individual leaf may overcomesuch problem caused by the difficulty in obtaining reliable SLAinformation.
Recently, there is an increased interest in developingfunctional-structural models for crop simulation (Prusinkiewicz,1998; Pan et al., 2000; Vos et al., 2007; Kang et al., 2008). A keycomponent of functional-structural modelling is to integrateoutput parameters from functional modules into structural ones.The output of the existing leaf area models, however, only givesthe total area of one plant or of the whole-crop stand (Kahlen,2006). A model for predicting LAI based on some underlyingmorphological traits of leaves would facilitate the link betweenconventional crop simulation models and functional-structuralcrop models.
The objective of this study is to develop a model for predictingcanopy LAI of greenhouse crops based on simple morphologicaltraits such as leaf number and specific leaf length as affected bytemperature and PAR. For this purpose, experiments at differentsites and different types of greenhouses were conducted during2003 to 2009 to collect data for development and validation of aphotothermal LAI model.
2. Materials and methods
Growth studies for five greenhouse crops – cucumber, sweetpepper, chrysanthemum, tulip and lilium were conductedduring 2003 and 2009. Detailed information about the experi-mental sites, periods, crop cultivars, planting density, type ofsubstrate and greenhouses is given in Table 1. In theseexperiments, cucumbers of experiments 1 to 6 were prunedto a single stem and one flower (fruit) was kept at each nodefrom the sixth node onwards, only one fruit was kept per fruitcluster. Sweet peppers of experiment 7 and 8 were pruned totwo stems at the 11th node. Leaf rank of sweet pepper wascounted according to the sequence of leaf appearance on bothstems. Standard commercial crop management practices wereused for growing the five crops.
In each experiment, three plants were sampled every 7 days tomeasure leaf area and dry matter accumulation and dry matterpartitioning. Ten additional plants were randomly selected fornon-destructive measurements. For these plants, leaf number, leaflength of each leaf node, and senesced leaves were measured every3 days. Minimum thresholds values used for leaf appearancesmeasurements were 20, 25, 50 and 35 mm for cucumber and sweetpepper, chrysanthemum, tulip and lilium, respectively. Leaf lengthwas measured from leaf tip to the point of petiole intersectionalong the midrib.
Air temperature at 1.5 m above the ground and PAR (LI190SB,LI-COR, Lincoln, Nrebaska, USA) above crop canopy inside thegreenhouses was monitored automatically and 30 minutes aver-age data were saved using a datalogger (CR1000, CampbellScientific Inc, Logan, Utah, USA).
Leaf net photosynthetic rate (Pn) in response to PAR wasdetermined, using Li-6400 (LI-COR) system at a CO2 concentrationof 370 � 20 mmol mol�1, on the newly fully-expanded leaves. Themeasurements were carried out during 9:00 to 12:00 for 3 successivesunny days at each development stage for cucumber, and at flowerbud break stage for other crops.
Data of the first experiment of each crop (i.e. experiments 1, 7, 9,11, 13, see Table 1) were used for model development. Those of thenine remaining experiments were used for model validation.
3. The photothermal model
3.1. Model structure
The overall model structure is shown in Fig. 1. In brief, usingdata of experiment 1, the photothermal index (PTI) was firstcalculated using greenhouse air temperature at 1.5 m aboveground and the intercepted PAR, which is dependent on theincoming PAR above canopy and the planting density. Secondly,using the accumulated PTI and the leaf number on the plantingdate, the number of appeared leaves per plant and the meanelongation rate of each leaf rank were calculated. Thirdly, the
Table 1Experimental period, crop and types of substrate, greenhouse and irrigation.
Exp# Location Cultivar Planting date
(dd-mm-yyyy)
Planting density
(pl m�2)
Type of
substratec
Type of
greenhoused
Type of
irrigatione
Cucumber (Cucumis Sativus)1a Shanghai (31.3 oN, 121.4 oE) Deltastar 16-12-2003 2.8 perlite I A
2 Shanghai (31.3 oN, 121.4 oE) Shenlu 72 31-03-2004 3.1/2.1b 1 II A
3 Shanghai (31.3 oN, 121.4 oE) Deltastar 04-05-2005 2.2 1 II A
4 Shanghai (31.3 oN, 121.4 oE) Deltastar 03-09-2005 2.2 2 II A
5 Shanghai (31.3 oN, 121.4 oE) Deltastar 18-09-2005 2.2 2 II A
6 Shanghai (31.3 oN, 121.4 oE) Deltastar 05-10-2007 2.2 Perlite I A
Sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L)7a Shihezi (44.1 oN, 86 oE) Mandy 24-04-2005 3.3 2 III A
8 Shanghai (31.3 oN, 121.4 oE) Huangoubao 10-08-2005 3.3 2 II A
Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium)9a Beijing (39.7 oN, 116.6 oE) Jinba 30-09-2007 57 3 III A
10 Shanghai (31.3 oN, 121.4 oE) Jinba 08-09-2005 62 3 III A
Tulip (Tulip Gesneriana)11a Lianyungang (34.7 oN, 119.5 oE) Golden Parade 05-12-2007 80 Soil III B
12 Lianyungang (34.7 oN, 119.5 oE) World Favorite 06-01-2008 100, 120 Soil III B
Lilium (Lilium Oriental hybrids)13a Lianyungang (34.7 oN, 119.5 oE) Sorbonne 28-08-2008 28 Soil III B
14 Nanjing (32 oN, 118 oE) Sorbonne 26-03-2009 36 3 IV A
a Data from this experiment were used for model development, and those from remaining experiments were used for model validation.b Planting density before/after flowering (05-05-2004).c Type of substrate: 1 peat: perlite (1:1); 2 vermiculate: perlite (2:1); 3 sand: turf: soil (2:1:1).d Type of greenhouse: I is Venlo-type glasshouse, composed of 44 spans; II is Venlo-type plastic greenhouse, composed of 24 spans; III is solar greenhouse; IV is plastic
greenhouse, composed of 2 spans.e Type of irrigation: A is drip irrigation with system; B is furrow irrigation.
R. Xu et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 541–552542
Author's personal copy
actual leaf length at different leaf ranks was quantified. Finally, LAIwas calculated according to the relationship between leaf area andleaf length. Details of this model approach are outlined below, withall equations given in Appendix A and all variables in the equationslisted in Appendix B.
3.2. Calculation of the normalized thermal time and the photothermal
index
The first step to obtain PTI is to calculate the normalizedthermal time for leaf growth (TTT). To this end, we used values of Pn
under saturated PAR (2000 mmol m�2 s�1) (Pn,max), derived fromthe PAR response curve of Pn. Temperature response curve of Pn,max
was constructed by fitting eqn (1) in Appendix A to data of Pn,max
obtained at different air temperatures, and an example is shown inFig. 2 for cucumber. Assuming that the minimum (Tmin), optimal(To) and maximum temperature (Tmax) for leaf growth are similarto those for leaf Pn, thermal time for leaf growth can be calculatedbased on eqn (1). We define TTT as the ratio of the growth rate at anactual temperature to that at To. So, TTT is calculated using Tmin, To
and Tmax according to eqn (2) in Appendix A, using the hourly airtemperature data of experiments 1, 7, 9, 11 and 13.
The PTI is defined as the daily average TTT multiplied by thedaily total PAR intercepted by the crop canopy. The value of PTI onday j (PTI[j]) can be calculated according to eqns (3) and (4), andthe accumulated PTI (PTIsum) during a certain growth period,which lasts for m days, is then calculated according to eqn (5)(Appendix A).
3.3. Calculation of the number of appeared leaves per plant
Values of PTIsum obtained in the last step can be used to quantifythe number of appeared leaves per plant (N). It was shown that
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the photothermal-based leaf area index model.
Fig. 2. Relationship between leaf net photosynthetic rate of cucumber under
saturated PAR (Pn,max) and air temperature at 1.5 m above ground (values at the
time when the PAR response curve of Pn is measured) inside the greenhouse. (
Pn,max values derived from the measured PAR response curve of Pn; — Fitted curve).
Fig. 3. Relationship between the numbers of appeared leaves per plant (a: cucumber, sweet pepper, chrysanthemum; b: tulip and lilium) and the photothermal index (PTIsum)
accumulated since planting date. (Measured data: cucumber; � sweet pepper; chrysanthemum; tulip; lilium; — Fitted curve).
R. Xu et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 541–552 543
Author's personal copy
Ta
ble
2Li
sto
fp
ara
me
ters
an
dth
eir
va
lue
su
sed
inth
em
od
el
(ex
pe
rim
en
ts1
,7
,9
,1
1a
nd
13
we
reu
sed
for
de
term
inin
gth
ev
alu
es)
.
Pa
ram
ete
rsD
efi
nit
ion
Un
itV
alu
eE
qn
#D
ep
en
de
nt
on
Cu
cum
be
rS
we
et
pe
pp
er
Ch
rysa
nth
em
um
Tu
lip
Lili
um
a1
Em
pir
ica
lco
effi
cie
nt
of
PIS
Hin
Eq
n2
2–
0.2
00
.25
0.3
30
.86
0.8
1(2
2)
Va
rie
tya
nd
pru
nin
gty
pe
a2
Em
pir
ica
lco
effi
cie
nt
of
PIS
Hin
Eq
n2
2–
34
03
18
31
88
63
18
(22
)V
ari
ety
an
dp
run
ing
typ
e
a3
Em
pir
ica
lco
effi
cie
nt
of
PIL
inE
qn
23
–0
.00
40
.00
20
.00
20
.00
30
.00
6(2
3)
Va
rie
tya
nd
pru
nin
gty
pe
a4
Em
pir
ica
lco
effi
cie
nt
of
PIL
inE
qn
23
–7
14
67
77
72
16
06
55
(23
)V
ari
ety
an
dp
run
ing
typ
e
CG
eo
me
tric
al
coe
ffici
en
to
fth
e
rela
tio
nsh
ipb
etw
ee
nle
af
are
aa
nd
lea
fle
ng
th
–0
.93
0.3
80
.22
0.1
90
.19
(12
),(1
6)
Va
rie
ty
kLi
gh
te
xti
nct
ion
coe
ffici
en
to
fca
no
py
–0
.80
0.8
00
.75
0.7
40
.70
(4)
Va
rie
ty
DG
DD
sum
(ma
x)
Th
em
ax
imu
ma
ccu
mu
late
dG
DD
req
uir
ed
by
ale
af
fro
mit
sa
pp
ea
ran
ceto
its
ma
xim
um
len
gth
on
the
pla
nt
oC
78
98
40
19
10
36
52
0(1
9)
Va
rie
tya
nd
pru
nin
gty
pe
L ap
Lea
fle
ng
tha
tw
hic
hth
ele
af
isco
un
ted
as
ap
pe
are
d
mm
20
20
25
50
50
(7),
(10
),(2
0)
Va
rie
ty
L ma
x(m
ax
)T
he
ma
xim
um
len
gth
of
ma
ture
dle
af
on
the
pla
nt
m0
.30
0.2
00
.11
0.2
60
.14
(9)
Va
rie
tya
nd
pru
nin
gty
pe
nm
ax
Lea
fra
nk
of
the
ma
xim
um
len
gth
of
ma
ture
d
lea
fo
nth
ep
lan
t
–2
01
53
54
31
(9)
Va
rie
ty
Pn
,ma
x(T
o)
Lea
fn
et
ph
oto
syn
the
sis
rate
un
de
rsa
tura
ted
PA
R
at
the
op
tim
al
tem
pe
ratu
reT
o
mm
ol
m�
2s�
12
02
02
32
21
8(1
),(2
)V
ari
ety
PIL
min
Th
em
inim
um
va
lue
of
lea
fd
rym
att
er
pa
rtit
ion
ing
ind
ex
du
rin
gth
eg
row
ing
sea
son
–0
.33
0.2
20
.53
0.4
00
.25
(23
)V
ari
ety
an
dp
run
ing
typ
e
PIL
ma
xT
he
ma
xim
um
va
lue
of
lea
fd
rym
att
er
pa
rtit
ion
ing
ind
ex
du
rin
gth
eg
row
ing
sea
son
–0
.86
0.7
90
.77
0.7
40
.48
(23
)V
ari
ety
an
dp
run
ing
typ
e
PIS
Hm
ax
Th
em
ax
imu
mv
alu
eo
fsh
oo
td
rym
att
er
pa
rtit
ion
ing
ind
ex
du
rin
gth
eg
row
ing
sea
son
–1
.00
0.9
10
.91
1.0
00
.65
(22
)V
ari
ety
an
dp
run
ing
typ
e
PT
I su
m(x
)aP
TI
acc
um
ula
ted
fro
mp
lan
tin
gd
ate
toth
est
art
of
de
ve
lop
me
nta
lst
ag
ex
MJ
m�
23
38
82
93
16
41
(6)
Va
rie
ty
DP
TI s
um
(ma
x)
Th
em
ax
imu
ma
ccu
mu
late
dP
TI
req
uir
ed
by
the
lea
f
fro
mit
sa
pp
ea
ran
ceto
its
ma
xim
um
len
gth
on
the
pla
nt
MJ
m�
27
28
31
80
11
55
(8)
Va
rie
ty
r 1R
ate
of
lea
fa
pp
ea
ran
ceb
efo
rest
ag
ex
lea
ve
s(M
Jm�
2)�
10
.59
0.3
00
.19
0.2
60
.85
(6)
Va
rie
tya
nd
pru
nin
gty
pe
r 2R
ate
of
lea
fa
pp
ea
ran
cea
fte
rst
ag
ex
lea
ve
s(M
Jm�
2)�
10
.21
0.2
10
.00
0.0
00
.00
(6)
Va
rie
tya
nd
pru
nin
gty
pe
r 3In
cre
asi
ng
rate
of
DP
TI s
um
wit
hle
af
ran
kM
Jm�
28
.51
4.0
15
.01
2.3
5.5
(8)
Va
rie
ty
r 4In
cre
asi
ng
rate
of
L ma
xw
ith
lea
fra
nk
be
fore
the
ma
xim
um
len
gth
of
ma
ture
dle
af
ap
pe
are
d
mm
80
44
21
15
02
8(9
)V
ari
ety
r 5In
cre
asi
ng
rate
of
L ma
xw
ith
lea
fra
nk
aft
er
the
ma
xim
um
len
gth
of
ma
ture
dle
af
ap
pe
are
d
mm
24
2–
3(9
)V
ari
ety
r 6R
ate
of
lea
fa
pp
ea
ran
cele
av
es
oC�
10
.03
80
.03
60
.02
70
.01
80
.02
9(1
8)
Va
rie
tya
nd
pru
nin
gty
pe
r 7In
cre
asi
ng
rate
ofD
GD
Dsu
mw
ith
lea
fra
nk
oC
67
13
01
52
23
48
(19
)V
ari
ety
an
dp
run
ing
typ
e
Tm
inT
he
min
imu
mte
mp
era
ture
for
Pn
,ma
xoC
51
01
14
4(1
)V
ari
ety
To
Th
eo
pti
ma
lte
mp
era
ture
for
Pn
,ma
xoC
28
27
25
15
23
(1)
Va
rie
ty
Tm
ax
Th
em
ax
imu
mte
mp
era
ture
for
Pn
,ma
xoC
45
35
36
25
30
(1)
Va
rie
ty
ax
inth
isp
ara
me
ter
rep
rese
nts
dif
fere
nt
de
ve
lop
me
nta
lst
ag
efo
rd
iffe
ren
tcr
op
s:fo
rcu
cum
be
ra
nd
swe
et
pe
pp
er,
xis
the
sta
rto
ffr
uit
sett
ing
;fo
rch
rysa
nth
em
um
,tu
lip
an
dli
liu
m,
xis
the
sta
rto
ffl
ow
er
bu
db
rea
k.
R. Xu et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 541–552544
Author's personal copy
there was a linear relationship between N and post-planting PTIsum
generally in two phases (Fig. 3). Let PTIsum(x) denote the momentfor the transition between the two phases, which representsdifferent developmental stage of different crops – the start of fruitsetting for cucumber and sweet pepper, but the start of flower budbreak for chrysanthemum, tulip and lilium. The relationshipsbetween N and PTIsum can then be summarised as eqn (6)(Appendix A). Using data of experiments 1, 7, 9, 11 and 13,coefficients in eqn (6), r1, r2 and PTIsum(x), were estimated for thefive crops (Table 2). For chrysanthemum, tulip and lilium, leaves donot appear after the flower bud break; so after flower bud break thenumber of leaves appeared per plant is a constant and the rate ofleaf appearance is zero in these three crops (Fig. 3). For these threecrops, the coefficient r2 was therefore set as zero (Table 2).
3.4. Calculation of the mean elongation rate of each leaf rank
The mean elongation rate of the leaf at rank n (RL[n]), countedupward from the first leaf, is defined as the ratio of its maximumleaf length (Lmax[n]) to the PTIsum over the period from the date ofits first appearance to the date when the leaf reaches its maximallength (DPTIsum). RL(n) then can be calculated as eqn (7)(Appendix A).
Values of both DPTIsum(n) and Lmax(n) depend on leaf rank perse (Fig. 4). A negative exponential model was found to be mostsuitable for describing DPTIsum(n) as a function of leaf rank n
(Fig. 4a, eqn (8) in Appendix A). A similar negative exponentialmodel was found to describe Lmax(n) development during the firstgrowth stage, after which a slight linear decline needs to be taken
Fig. 4. Effect of leaf node number on accumulated photothermal index from the date when the leaf appears to the date when the leaf reaches its maximal length ( PTIsum) (a:
cucumber, sweet pepper and chrysanthemum; b: tulip and lilium) and the maximum leaf length (c: cucumber, sweet pepper and chrysanthemum; d: tulip and lilium).
(Measured data: cucumber; � sweet pepper; chrysanthemum; tulip; lilium; — Fitted curve).
Fig. 5. Relationship between individual leaf area and leaf length (a: cucumber; b: sweet pepper; c: chrysanthemum; d: tulip; e: lilium). ( Measured value; — Fitted curve)
R. Xu et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 541–552 545
Author's personal copy
into account (Fig. 4b, eqn [9] in Appendix A). Using the data ofexperiments 1, 7, 9, 11 and 13, their coefficients (r3, r4, and r5) wereestimated (Table 2).
3.5. Calculation of actual leaf length at different leaf ranks
The actual leaf length at leaf rank n on day j (L[n,j]) can then becalculated using eqns (10) and (11) (Appendix A). For thiscalculation, an input variable PTIsum(j) was already described,i.e. be calculated using eqns (1) to (5) in Appendix A, and therequired leaf rank n can be calculated using eqn (6).
3.6. Determination of the relationship between individual leaf area
and leaf length
For our model methodology to calculate LAI based on individualleaves, it is necessary to establish the relationship between thearea of a leaf and its corresponding length. We found a simpleallometric equation, eqn (12) in Appendix A, to adequately capturethis relationship. The empirical coefficients C of the equation forcucumber, sweet pepper, chrysanthemum, tulip and lilium wereobtained from curve-fitting using data of experiments 1, 7, 9, 11and 13, respectively (Fig. 5). Values of coefficient C for these cropsare summarized in Table 2.
3.7. Calculation of canopy leaf area index
Using the aforementioned relationships, canopy LAI on day j
(LAI [j]) can be calculated based on the leaf area per plant on day j
(LA[j]) and the crop planting density (d), according to eqns (13) to(16) in Appendix A.
4. Comparison with GDD- and SLA-based models
To compare our model approach with the existing GDD- andSLA-based models, the same experiments used for the modeldevelopment and validation were also used to develop and validatethe latter two models.
In principle, the above relationships established for ourphotothermal model can be used for the GDD-based model,provided that PTI-related variables are now replaced with GDD-
related variables. Thus, using the data of experiments 1, 7, 9, 11 and13, the relationship between number of appeared leaves per plantand accumulated GDD (GDDsum) was determined as eqn (17)(Fig. 6a,b). The accumulated GDD here is calculated using theminimum temperature for leaf growth (Tmin) of each crops listed inTable 2 as the base temperature. Then, the mean elongation rate ofthe leaf at rank n (R’L[n]) can be calculated as eqn (18). Thedependence of Lmax(n) on leaf rank n is the same as eqn (9). Inanalogy with eqn (8), the dependence of DGDDsum(n) (Fig. 6c,d) onleaf rank n is determined as eqn (19) using the data ofexperiments 1, 7, 9, 11 and 13. The actual leaf length at leaf rankn on day j (L[n,j]) can be calculated as eqns (20) and (21). For theGDD-based model, canopy LAI on day j (LAI [j]) still can becalculated using eqns (12) to (16). The estimated values of thecoefficients of the GDD-based model are also given in Table 2.
For the SLA-based LAI calculation, the SUCROS crop model(Goudriaan and van Laar, 1994) was used by assuming a maximumleaf photosynthetic rate of 32 kg CO2 ha�1 leaf h�1 for cucumber(equivalent to 20 mmol m�2 s�1) (Fig. 2), 32 kg CO2 ha�1 leaf h�1
for sweet pepper, 37 kg CO2 ha�1 leaf h�1 for chrysanthemum,35 kg CO2 ha�1 leaf h�1 for tulip, and 29 kg CO2 ha�1 leaf h�1 forlilium according to our experimental data. In this crop model, cropcanopy was divided into three layers to calculate canopyphotosynthesis using the three-point Gaussian integration meth-od. For the detailed description on the calculation of crop biomassproduction (BIOMASS), readers are referred to Goudriaan and vanLaar (1994).
Because SLA was measured as the average value of standingleaves in the canopy, we slightly changed the original formulationin SUCROS, in which the partitioning was meant for the incrementof photosynthetic assimilates. Here, for our illustration of the SLA-based model, we define the shoot dry matter partitioning index asthe ratio of the accumulated shoot dry weight to the accumulatedtotal biomass, and the leaf dry matter partitioning index as theratio of the accumulated leaf dry weight to the accumulated shootdry weight. Values of these partitioning indices were calculated aseqns (22) and (23), using the data of experiments 1, 7, 9, 11 and 13(Fig. 7). The canopy LAI can then be calculated as eqns (24) and(25).
To evaluate the three model methods, the commonly usedcoefficient of determination of the simple linear regression (r2) and
Fig. 6. Relationship between the numbers of appeared leaves per plant and GDD accumulated since planting date (a: cucumber, sweet pepper and chrysanthemum; b: tulip and
lilium) and the dependence of GDD accumulated from the date when the leaf appears to the date when the leaf reaches its maximal length ( GDDsum) on leaf node number
(c: cucumber, sweet pepper and chrysanthemum; d: tulip and lilium). (Measured data: cucumber; � sweet pepper; chrysanthemum; tulip; lilium; — Fitted curve).
R. Xu et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 541–552546
Author's personal copy
root mean squared error (RMSE) between the predicted andmeasured values (see eqns [26] and [27]) are calculated.
5. Results
5.1. Validation of the photothermal model
Data of experiments 2 to 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 were used tovalidate the model. Using the greenhouse air temperature at 1.5 mabove ground and PAR above canopy, planting date, the leafnumber on the planting date, planting density, and the number ofremoved old leaves as input, our photothermal model (eqns [1] –[16]) gave satisfactory predictions of the number of leavesappeared per plant, individual leaf length at each rank, and thecanopy LAI of all the five greenhouse crops (Fig. 8). The overallcoefficient of determination (r2) and the RMSE of the five cropsbetween the predicted and measured results were 0.99 and 0.95,respectively, for the number of leaves appeared per plant, 0.98 and0.01 m for individual leaf length and 0.98 and 0.13 m2 m�2 for LAI.
Measured LAI of cucumber and sweet pepper were smaller thanthat of chrysanthemum, tulip and lilium (Fig. 8) due to the lowerplanting density and the removal of senesced leaves of the plants ofthese two crops. The number of appeared leaves per plant ofcucumber and sweet pepper and the maximum leaf length of all
the crops except tulip fluctuated with the changes of the sink-source ratio induced by new fruit (flower) appearing, fruitabortion, and fruit (flower) harvesting after fruit setting or budbreak. Therefore, the prediction accuracy of the number of leavesappeared per plant, individual leaf length and canopy LAI ofcucumber in the late growing season was somewhat lower thanthat in the early season.
5.2. Comparison of the photothermal model with the GDD- and
SLA-based models
For the GDD-based model, the r2 and RMSE between thepredicted and measured results in the validation experiments are0.93 and 4.23, respectively, for the number of leaves appeared perplant (Fig. 9a), 0.82 and 0.04 m for the leaf length (Fig. 9b), and 0.87and 0.48 m2 m�2 for LAI (Fig. 9c). The number of appeared leavesper plant and the canopy LAI were overestimated (in experiments 4and 6) or underestimated (experiments 2, 3 and 5) by the GDD-based model. This can be attributed to the fact that inside thegreenhouse, sometimes PAR does not synchronize with thetemperature inside the greenhouse. For example, the accumulatedPAR of cucumber of experiment 1 was lower than that ofexperiments 2, 3 and 5 but higher than that of experiments 4and 6 (Fig. 10).
Fig. 8. Comparison between the predicted and measured number of appeared leaves per plant (a), individual leaf length (b) and LAI (c) using our photothermal model.
( cucumber; � sweet pepper; chrysanthemum; tulip; lilium; — 1:1 line).
Fig. 9. Comparison between the predicted and measured number of appeared leaves per plant (a), individual leaf length (b) and LAI (c) using the GDD-based model.
( cucumber; � sweet pepper; chrysanthemum; tulip; lilium; — 1:1 line).
Fig. 7. The relationship between dry matter partitioning index of shoot (PISH) (a) and dry matter partitioning index of leaf (PIL) (b) and GDD accumulated since planting date.
(Measured data: cucumber; � sweet pepper; chrysanthemum; tulip; lilium; — Fitted curve).
R. Xu et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 541–552 547
Author's personal copy
To further investigate the reason why the photothermal modelgave better predictions than the GDD-based model, the keyparameters of both models were estimated using the data of thevalidation experiments, i.e. experiments 2 to 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14(Table 3). Table 3 shows that the key parameters of thephotothermal model (DPTIsum[nFS], r1-r5) are much more conser-vative than those of the GDD-based model (DGDDsum[nFS], r6 andr7) among the cultivars and planting densities used in this study. Inthe photothermal model, the consistency of the model parametersacross the experiments can be attributed to the fact that the PARintercepted by crop canopy that is dependent on LAI or plantingdensity is also taken into account by the model.
For comparison between the photothermal model and the SLA-based model, both the measured SLA data and the estimated SLAdata (seasonal time course of SLA in the experiments for modeldevelopment) were used to predict the LAI of experiments 2 to 6, 8,10, 12 and 14 using the SLA-based model (Fig. 11). The r2 and RMSEbetween the predicted and measured LAI were 0.81 and1.24 m2 m�2, respectively, when using the estimated SLA (data
of experiments 1, 7, 9, 11 and 13) as input (Fig. 11a), and 0.94 and0.25 m2 m�2 when using the measured SLA data of experiments 2to 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 as input (Fig. 11b). The SLA-based model gavethe poorest predictions of LAI when using the SLA data set formodel development as input (Fig. 11a) due to the large variation ofSLA among different growing seasons (Fig. 12 shows this variationfor the case of cucumber). The SLA-based model gave betterpredictions of LAI when using the measured, experiment-specificSLA data as inputs (Fig. 11b). The SLA data, however, can only beobtained by destructive measurements. This limits the applicationof the SLA-based model to greenhouse crops and climatemanagement practices. Compared with the SLA-based model,our photothermal model can not only give satisfactory predictionsof LAI, but also predict the leaf appearance and individual leaflength and area at each rank satisfactorily.
6. Discussion and conclusions
Although both temperature and PAR are important climatefactors affecting leaf growth, many studies mainly focus oninvestigating the effect of only temperature on leaf growth such asleaf number (Baker et al., 1986; Villalobos and Ritchie, 1992;NeSmith, 1997) and leaf elongation rate (Ong, 1983a, 1983b,1983c). Analysis of our experimental data further demonstratesthat only using temperature as an input parameter, the GDD-based model did not accurately describe leaf growth (number perplant, individual leaf length) and canopy LAI for greenhouse-grown crops (Fig. 9) because temperature did not synchronizewith PAR (Fig. 10). Compared with the GDD-based model, theadvantage of our photothermal model lies in the consistency ofthe model parameters across different production settings andcrops (Table 3). Based on this it appears that the photothermalmodel is more universally applicable than the GDD-based modelbecause the effects of planting density on leaf appearance andgrowth were taken into account by using the PAR intercepted bycrop canopy.
Fig. 10. Seasonal time course of accumulated GDD (a) and accumulated PAR (b). ( experiment 1, for model development;� experiment 2; experiment 3; experiment 4;
experiment 5; experiment 6).
Fig. 12. Seasonal time course of the specific leaf area (SLA) of cucumber crops.
( experiment 1, for model development; � experiment 2; experiment 3;
experiment 4; experiment 5; experiment 6).
Fig. 11. Comparison between predicted LAI and measured LAI by the SLA-based model using estimated SLA values (a) and measured SLA data (b) as inputs. ( cucumber; �sweet pepper; chrysanthemum; tulip; lilium; — 1:1 line).
R. Xu et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 541–552548
Author's personal copy
In principle, the effects of both temperature and interceptedPAR on leaf growth are taken into account in photosynthesis-driven crop simulation models. However, prediction of LAI usingthis type of simulation models is to a large extent affected by SLAvalues that are being used (Kropff et al., 1994; Yin et al., 2000).These SLA-values in turn, are very sensitive to environmentalconditions (Poorter et al., 2009), implying that SLA may not be thecause of LAI but simply be the consequence of different responsesof leaf area and biomass to environmental factors. In general, it ishard to obtain accurate SLA values, since model-predicted valuesare often flawed while values required destructive measurements.
Most crop models predict LAI, considering individual leaves asuniform group of separate entities based on leaf mass (e.g. inSUCROS, Goudriaan and van Laar, 1994) or from canopy leaf-nitrogen content (Yin et al., 2003). Alternatively, canopy LAI can beconsidered to be dependent on number of leaves per plant, area ofindividual leaf and planting density. Individual leaf area can be easilyestimated using leaf length (Serdar and Demirsoy, 2006; Peksen,2007; Kandiannan et al., 2009). Based on current results, we proposean approach to predict LAI by quantifying the number of leaves perplant and the length of individual leaf, as affected by temperatureand PAR. Using temperature and PAR as driving variables, our modelgave robust predictions of canopy LAI of different greenhouse cropsgrown in different site, seasons and planting densities (Fig. 8). Zezgin(2006) used a similar approach to predict leaf numbers before fruit-set of tomato crops. In Zezgin’s study, temperature and light wereintegrated by means of multiple regression analysis. The regressioncoefficients used in the model, however, have little biologicalmeaning; hence limit the model application for crops andconditions other than those used during model development. Inour model, the variables and parameters are more directlylinked to biological processes. Compared to LAI-based models,our photothermal model, though empirical, can not only givebetter predictions of LAI, but also predict the morphologicaltraits of leaves satisfactorily. Hence, our model has a potential tobe integrated with a functional-structural model for greenhousecrops grown under conditions without stresses.
Our model adequately predicts LAI for greenhouse-growncrops at different latitudes (from 31.3 oN to 44.1 oN, from 86 oE
to 121.4 oE) and a range of both planting densities (from2.08 pl m�2 to 120 pl m�2) and pruning system (single stem forcucumber and two stems for sweet pepper). By calibrating thevariety- and pruning type-dependent parameters (Table 2),our model can be applied to other crops or varieties and pruningtypes. Therefore, our model can be integrated with photosyn-thesis driven crop growth models to solve the problemcaused by the difficulty in obtaining reliable SLA information,and with canopy transpiration models that need canopy LAI asinput.
A number of areas, however, have been identified to furtherimprove our model approach. First, leaf nitrogen concentration(e.g. Yin et al., 2003) and soil water potential (e.g. Reymond et al.,2003) are known to have an impact on leaf growth; and theireffects with regard to prediction of LAI should be considered in thenext step within our model framework. Secondly, Marcelis (1994)and Bertin (1995) have shown that after fruit setting, the growth ofleaves (the rate of leaf appearing, individual leaf elongation) isaffected by the changes of the sink and source strength due to newfruit appearing, fruit abortion and harvesting. Quantifying theeffects of sink-source strength on the growth of plant leaves afterfruit setting is the key step to further improve the predictionaccuracy of our photothermal model. To this end, more experi-ments for the crops like cucumber and sweet pepper with widerange of fruit loads (e.g. various ways of fruit pruning andfrequencies of fruit harvesting) are needed to quantify the effects ofthe changes of the sink-source ratio on leaf growth after fruitsetting. Lastly, there is a need to make an effective calibrationprocedure if our model is to be used widely. For this purpose,development of an optimization routine, such as that in DSSAT,that makes calibrating our model more effectively, is another stepto take in future.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation ofChina (NSFC) (30771262), the Chinese High-tech Program 863(2006AA10Z218), and the Jiangsu Natural Science Foundation(JSNSF) (BK2007720).
Table 3Some key models parameters in photothermal model and GDD-based model, estimated from all different experiments.
Key parameters used for photothermal model Key parameters used for GDD-based model
Exp# PTIsum(x)
MJ m�2
r1 leaves
(MJ m�2)�1
r2 leaves
(MJ m�2)�1
DPTIsum(max)
MJ m�2
Lmax(max)
m
r3
MJ m�2
r4
mm
r5
mm
DGDDsum(max)oC
r6 leavesoC�1
r7oC
1 33 0.59 0.21 72 0.30 8.5 80 2 789 0.038 67
2 34 0.53 0.19 74 0.29 8.6 80 2 524 0.040 62
34 0.53 0.19 74 0.29 8.1 80 2 524 0.059 65
3 32 0.65 0.22 73 0.30 8.2 80 2 778 0.051 74
4 32 0.64 0.22 74 0.30 8.2 80 2 793 0.034 81
5 33 0.56 0.19 72 0.29 8.3 80 2 803 0.043 72
6 34 0.57 0.21 73 0.30 8.2 80 2 652 0.018 62
7 88 0.30 0.21 83 0.20 14.0 44 4 840 0.036 130
8 91 0.30 0.00 88 0.19 11.9 45 4 1008 0.040 98
9 293 0.19 0.00 180 0.11 15.0 21 2 1910 0.027 152
10 289 0.19 0.00 188 0.10 14.7 20 2 2083 0.027 152
11 16 0.26 0.00 11 0.26 12.3 150 – 36 0.018 23
12 17 0.24 0.00 11 0.24 11.8 140 – 53 0.016 18
18 0.22 0.00 10 0.23 11.6 140 – 49 0.020 18
13 41 0.85 0.00 55 0.14 5.5 28 3 520 0.029 44
14 43 0.85 0.00 54 0.14 5.4 28 3 581 0.028 51
R. Xu et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 541–552 549
Author's personal copy
Appendix A. Equations for different steps of our photothermal model and those for the GDD- and SLA-based models
Equations Unit Number
Calculation of the normalized thermal time and the photothermal index
Pn;max Tð Þ ¼
0 T < Tminð Þ
Pn;max Toð Þ � sinp2� T � Tmin
To � Tmin
� �Tmin � T < Toð Þ
Pn;max T0ð Þ � sinp2� Tmax � T
Tmax � To
� �To � T � Tmaxð Þ
0 T > Tmaxð Þ
8>>>>>><>>>>>>:
mmol m�2 s�1 (1)
TTT= Pn;max Tð ÞPn;max Toð Þ – (2)
PTI jð Þ ¼ 124
X24
i¼1
TT i; jð Þ !
� PARint jð Þ MJ m�2 d�1 (3)
PARint (j) =PAR (j) � (1-exp (-k � LAI (j-1))) MJ m�2 d�1 (4)
PTIsum ¼Xmj¼1
PTI jð Þ MJ m�2 (5)
Calculation of the number of appeared leaves per plant
N ¼ n0 þ r1 � PTIsum PTIsum � PTIsumðxÞnx þ r2 � PTIsum � PTIsum xð Þð Þ PTIsum > PTIsumðxÞ
�– (6)
Calculation of the mean elongation rate of each leaf rankRL(n)=
Lmax nð Þ�La p
DPTIsum nð Þ m (MJ m�2)�11 (7)
DPTIsum(n)= DPTIsum maxð Þ � 1� exp � r3�nDPTIsum maxð Þ
� �� �MJ m�2 (8)
LmaxðnÞ ¼ Lmax maxð Þ � 1� exp � r4 � n
Lmax maxð Þ
� �� �n � nmaxð Þ
Lmax maxð Þ � r5 � n� nmaxð Þ n>nmaxð Þ
8<: m (9)
Calculation of actual leaf length at different leaf ranks
L n; jð Þ ¼ RL nð Þ �DPTIsum n; jð Þ þ La p L n; jð Þ< Lmax nð ÞLmax nð Þ L n; jð Þ� Lmax nð Þ
�m (10)
DPTIsum (n,j) = PTIsum (j)-PTIsum (n) MJ m�2 (11)
Determination of the relationship between individual leaf area and leaf lengthLA(n,j) =C � (L (n,j)) 2 m2 (12)
Calculation of canopy leaf area indexLAI(j) = LA(j) � d – (13)
LAð jÞ ¼ ðXN
n¼1
LAðn; jÞÞ � LAoð jÞ m2 (14)
LAoð jÞ ¼XNoð jÞ
n¼1
ðC � ðLmaxðnÞÞ2Þ m2 (15)
LAI(0)=Xn0
n¼1
C � L p nð Þ� �2
� �� d – (16)
Comparison with GDD-based modelN = n0 + r6 � GDDsum – (17)
R’L(n)=Lmax nð Þ�La p
DGDDsum nð Þ m oC�1 (18)
DGDDsum(n)= DGDDsum maxð Þ � 1� exp � r7�nDGDDsum maxð Þ
� �� �oC (19)
L n; jð Þ ¼ R0L nð Þ �DGDDsum n; jð Þ þ La p L n; jð Þ< Lmax nð ÞLmax nð Þ L n; jð Þ� Lmax nð Þ
�m (20)
DGDDsum (n,j) = GDDsum (j)-GDDsum (n) oC (21)
Comparison with SLA-based modelPISH(j) = PISHmax � a1 � exp �GDDsum jð Þ
a2
� �– (22)
PIL jð Þ ¼ PILmin þPILmax�PILmin
1þ10�a3� a4�GDDsum jð Þð Þ – (23)
LAI(j)= WSH(j) � PIL(j) � SLA(j) – (24)
WSH(j) =BIOMASS(j) � PISH(j) g m�2 (25)
R. Xu et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 541–552550
Author's personal copy
References
Baker, J.T., Pinter Jr., Reginato, R.J., Kanemasu, E.T., 1986. Effects of temperature onleaf appearance in spring and winter wheat cultivar. Agron. J. 78, 605–613.
Bertin, N., 1995. Competition for assimilates and fruit position affect fruit set inindeterminate greenhouse tomato. Ann. Bot. 75, 55–65.
Dayan, E., Van Keulen, H., Jones, J.W., Zipori, I., Shmuel, D., Challa, H., 1993.Development, calibration and validation of a greenhouse tomato growth model:I. Description of the model. Agr. Sys 43, 145–163.
Gijzen, H., Heuvelink, E., Challa, H., Marcelis, L.F.M., Dayan, E., Cohen, S., et al., 1998.Hortisim: A model for greenhouse crops and greenhouse climate. Acta Hortic.456, 441–450.
Goudriaan J., van Laar H.H., 1994. Modelling potential crop growth processes. Leafarea growth. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Heuvelink E., 1996. Tomato growth and yield: quantitative analysis and synthesis.PhD Dissertation, Wageningen Agriculture University, The Netherlands.
Heuvelink, E., Marcelis, L.F.M., 1996. Influence of assimilate supply on leaf forma-tion in sweet pepper and tomato. J. Hortic. Sci. 71, 405–414.
Kahlen, K., 2006. 3D architectural modelling of greenhouse cucumber (Cucumissativus L.) using L-system. Acta Hortic 718, 51–59.
Kang, M.Z., Cournede, P.H., de Reffye, P., Auclair, D., Hu, B.G., 2008. Analytical studyof a stochastic plant growth model: Application to the GreenLab model. Math.Comput. Simulat. 78, 57–75.
Kandiannan, K., Pathasarathy, U., Krishnamurthy, K.S., Thankamani, C.K., Srinivasan,V., 2009. Modeling individual leaf area of ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe)using leaf length and width. Sci. Hortic. 120, 532–537.
Kropff, M.J., van Laar, H. H. and Matthews, R.B., 1994. ORYZA1 – an ecophysiologicalmodel for irrigated rice production. IRRI, Los Banos, The Phillippines.
Appendix A (Continued )
The method of model validation
r2=P
x�xð Þ y�yð Þð Þ2Px�xð Þ2
Py�yð Þ2
– (26)
RMSE ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiXb
i¼1
OBSi�SIMið Þ2
b
vuuut– (27)
Appendix B. List of all variables used in the models and their units.
Variable Definition Unit Eqn#
b Number of samples – (27)
BIOMASS(j) Accumulated total biomass production on day j g m�2 (25)
d Planting density plants m�2 (13), (16)
GDDsum Accumulated GDD oC (17)
GDDsum (n) GDDsum from the planting date to the date when leaf at rank n (here n = N) appears oC (21)
GDDsum (j) GDDsum from the planting date to day j oC (21), (22), (23)
DGDDsum(n) GDD accumulated from the date of the leaf (at rank n, here n = N) appearance to the date
when the leaf reaches its maximal length
oC (18), (19)
DGDDsum (n,j) GDD accumulated from the date when leaf at rank n (here n = N) appeared today j oC (21)
L(n,j) Actual leaf length at leaf rank n (here n = N) on day j m (10), (12)
Lmax(n) The maximum length of the leaf at rank n (here n = N) m (7), (9), (15)
LA(j) Leaf area per plant on day j m2 plant�1 (14)
LA(n,j) Leaf area at rank n (here n = N) on day j m2 plant�1 (14)
LAo(j) Area of the removed old leaves per palnt till day j m2 plant�1 (14), (15)
LAI (j-1) Canopy leaf area index on day j-1 – (4)
LAI (j) Canopy leaf area index on day j – (13), (24)
LAI(0) Initial leaf area index on the planting date – (16)
Lp(n) Leaf length at rank n on the planting date m (17)
N Number of appeared leaves per plant plant�1 (6)
No(j) Number of removed old leaves per plant till day j plant�1 (15)
n Leaf rank counting upward from the first leaf – (8), (9)
n0 Number of appeared leaves per plant on planting date plant�1 (6)
OBSi Measured data – (27)
PAR (j) Daily total PAR above the canopy on day j MJ m�2 d�1 (4)
PARint(j) Daily total PAR intercepted by the cucumber crop canopy on day j MJ m�2 d�1 (3), (4)
PISH(j) Dry matter partitioning index of shoot on day j – (22), (25)
PIL(j) Dry matter partitioning index of leaves on day j – (23), (24)
Pn,max(T) Leaf net photosynthesis rate under saturated PAR at temperature T mmol m�2 s�1 (1), (2)
PTI(j) Value of PTI on day j MJ m�2 d�1 (3), (5)
PTIsum Accumulated PTI MJ m�2 (5), (6)
PTIsum(j) PTIsum from the planting date to day j MJ m�2 (11)
PTIsum(n) PTIsum from the planting date to the date when leaf appeared at rank n (here n = N) MJ m�2 (11)
DPTIsum(n) PTI accumulated from the date when the leaf at rank n (here n = N) appeared to the date
when the leaf reaches its maximal length
MJ m�2 (7), (8)
DPTIsum (n,j) Accumulated PTI from the planting date to day j minus the accumulated PTI from the date
when the leaf at rank n (here n = N) appeared
MJ m�2 (11)
RL(n) Mean elongation rate of the leaf at rank n (here n = N) based on PTI m (MJ m�2)�1 (7), (10)
R’L(n) Mean elongation rate of the leaf at rank n (here n = N) based on GDD m oC�1 (18), (20)
SIMi Predicted data – (27)
SLA(j) Specific leaf area on day j m2 g�1 (24)
TT(i,j) Normalized thermal time at hour i on day j – (3)
TTT Normalized thermal time at temperature T – (2)
WSH(j) Accumulated shoot dry weight on day j g m�2 (25)
x Measured value – (26)
x Mean values of the measured variables – (26)
y Predicted value – (26)
y Mean values of the predicted variables – (26)
R. Xu et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 541–552 551
Author's personal copy
Leutscher, K.J., Vogelezang, J.V.M., 1990. A crop growth simulation model foroperational management support in pot plant production. Agr. Sys. 33, 101–114.
Lieth, J.H., Pasian, C.C., 1991. A simulation model for the growth and development offlowering rose shoots. Sci. Hortic. 46, 109–128.
Marcelis, L.F.M., 1994. A simulation model for dry matter partitioning in cucumber.Ann. Bot. 74, 43–52.
Marcelis, L.F.M., Gijzen, H., 1998. A model for prediction of yield and quality ofcucumber fruits. Acta Hortic. 476, 237–242.
Marcelis, L.F.M., Heuvelink, E., Goudriaan, J., 1998. Modelling biomass productionand yield of horticultural crops: a review. Sci. Hortic. 74, 83–111.
NeSmith, D.S., 1997. Summer squash (Cucubita pepo L.) leaf number as influenced bythermal time. Sci. Hortic. 68, 219–225.
Ong, C.K., 1983a. Response to temperature in a stand of pearl millet(Pennisetum typhoıdes S. and H.) I. vegetative development. J. Exp. Bot. 34,322–336.
Ong, C.K., 1983b. Response to temperature in a stand of pearl millet(Pennisetum typhoıdes S. and H.) II. Reproductive development. J. Exp. Bot.34, 337–348.
Ong, C.K., 1983c. Response to temperature in a stand of pearl millet (Pennisetumtyphoıdes S. and H.) IV. Extension of individual leaves. J. Exp. Bot. 34, 1731–1739.
Pan, X., Hesketh, J.D., Huck, M.G., 2000. OWSimu: an object-oriented and web-basedsimulator for plant growth. Agr. Sys. 63, 33–47.
Peksen, E., 2007. Non-destructive leaf area estimation model for faba bean (Viciafaba L.). Sci. Hortic. 113, 322–328.
Poorter, H., Niinemets, U., Poorter, L., Wright, I.J., Villar, R., 2009. Causes andconqequences of variation in leaf mass per area (LMA): a meta-analysis.New Phytol. 182, 565–588.
Prusinkiewicz, P., 1998. Modeling of spatial structure and development of plant: areview. Sci. Hortic. 74, 113–149.
Reymond, M., Muller, B., Leonardi, A., Charcosset, A., Tardieu, F., 2003. Combiningquantitative trait loci analysis and an ecophysiological model to analyze thegenetic variability of the responses of maize leaf growth to temperature andwater deficit. Plant Physiol. 131, 664–675.
Serdar, U., Demirsoy, H., 2006. Non-destructive leaf area estimation in chestnut. Sci.Hortic. 108, 227–230.
Villalobos, F.J., Ritchie, J.T., 1992. The effect of temperature on leaf emergence ratesof sunflower genotypes. Field Crop Res. 29, 37–46.
Vos J, Marcelis L.F.M., de Visser P.C., Struik P.C., Evers J.B., 2007. Functional-structural plant modeling in crop production. Wageningen UR Frontis SeriesNo. 21, Springer: Printed in Netherlands.
Yin, X., Schapendonk, A.H.C.M., Kropff, M.J., van Oijen, M., Bindraban, P.S., 2000. Ageneric equation for nitrogen-limited leaf area index and its application in cropgrowth models for predicting leaf senescence. Ann. Bot. 85, 579–585.
Yin, X., Lantinga, E.A., Schapendonk, A.H.C.M., Zhong, X., 2003. Some quantitativerelationships between leaf area index and canopy nitrogen content and distri-bution. Ann. Bot. 91, 893–903.
Zezgin, U., 2006. The quantitative effects of temperature and light on the number ofleaves preceding the first fruiting inflorescence on the stem of tomato (Lyco-persicon esculentum, Mill.) and aubergine (Solanum melongena L.). Sci. Hortic.109, 142–214.
R. Xu et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150 (2010) 541–552552