4.7 Article

Variability of light interception and radiation use efficiency in maize and soybean

Journal

FIELD CROPS RESEARCH
Volume 121, Issue 1, Pages 147-152

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2010.12.007

Keywords

Cumulative intercepted photosynthetically active radiation; CI-PAR; radiation use efficiency; RUE; Relative growth rate; RGR; Reliability ratio; k

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Variability of light interception and its derivatives are poorly understood at the field-scale in maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glyine max (L) Merr.]. Quantifying variability can provide reliable estimates of field-scale processes and reliable methodology. A field study was conducted during the 2005 growing season in a 31 ha maize and 23 ha soybean field rotated annually near Ames, IA to measure variability of cumulatively intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (CI-PAR) and radiation use efficiency (RUE) by deploying eight line quantum sensors in each field. Cumulative mean PAR interception for soybean was 575 MJ m(-2) ending on day of the year (DOY) 249 compared with 687 MJ m(-2) in maize ending on DOY 244. Soybean standard error (s(x)) for a single sensor was 4.48% and with six sensors was 1.83% of the final CI-PAR. Maize sx for a single sensor was 5.29% and with eight sensors was 1.87% of the final CI-PAR. Crop biomass was quantified weekly by collecting four 1 m(2) samples. Soybean RUE using all sensors was 1.44 +/- 0.06 g MJ PAR(-1). The highest CI-PAR from a single sensor had RUE of 1.32 and the lowest was 1.55 g MJ PAR(-1). Maize RUE using all sensors was 3.35 +/- 0.09. The highest CI-PAR from a single sensor had RUE of 2.87 and the lowest was 3.70g MJ PAR(-1). Reliable transmitted PAR and RUE estimates are obtainable at the field-scale in maize and soybean with four and three sensors, respectively, assuming that crop biomass is accurately measured. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available