4.7 Article

Efficiency of chlorophyll in gross primary productivity: A proof of concept and application in crops

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 201, 期 -, 页码 101-110

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.jplph.2016.05.019

关键词

Crops; Maize; Primary production; PAR; Phenology; Soybean; Water status

资金

  1. Lady Davis and Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship
  2. NASA NACP program
  3. U.S. Department of Energy
  4. Center for Advanced Land Management Information Technologies (CALMIT) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the main factors affecting vegetation productivity is absorbed light, which is largely governed by chlorophyll. In this paper, we introduce the concept of chlorophyll efficiency, representing the amount of gross primary production per unit of canopy chlorophyll content (Chl) and incident PAR. We analyzed chlorophyll efficiency in two contrasting crops (soybean and maize). Given that they have different photosynthetic pathways (C3 vs. C4), leaf structures (dicot vs. monocot) and canopy architectures (a heliotrophic leaf angle distribution vs. a spherical leaf angle distribution), they cover a large spectrum of biophysical conditions. Our results show that chlorophyll efficiency in primary productivity is highly variable and responds to various physiological and phenological conditions, and water availability. Since Chl is accessible through non-destructive, remotely sensed techniques, the use of chlorophyll efficiency for modeling and monitoring plant optimization patterns is practical at different scales (e.g., leaf, canopy) and under widely-varying environmental conditions. Through this analysis, we directly related a functional characteristic, gross primary production with a structural characteristic, canopy chlorophyll content. Understanding the efficiency of the structural characteristic is of great interest as it allows explaining functional components of the plant system. (C) 2016 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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