4.7 Article

A mathematical model linking tree sap flow dynamics to daily stem diameter fluctuations and radial stem growth

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 257-273

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/26.3.257

关键词

beech; capacitance; desorption curve; identifiability; Lockhart's equation; model selection; parameter estimation; sensitivity analysis; stern. diameter variation; water relations; water storage

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To date, models for simulating sap flow dynamics in individual trees with a direct link to stem diameter variation include only the diameter fluctuation driven by a change in stem water storage. This paper reports results obtained with a comprehensive flow and storage model using whole-tree leaf transpiration as the only input variable. The model includes radial stem growth based on Lockhart's equation for irreversible cell expansion. It was demonstrated that including growth is essential to obtaining good simulation results. To model sap flow dynamics, capacitance of storage tissues was assumed either constant (i.e., electrical analogue approach) or variable and dependent on the water content of the respective storage tissue (i.e., hydraulic system approach). These approaches resulted in different shapes for the desorption curve used to calculate the capacitance of storage tissues. Comparison of these methods allowed detection of specific differences in model simulation of sap flow at the stem base (F(stein)) and stem diameter variation (D). Sensitivity analysis was performed to select a limited subset of identifiable parameters driving most of the variability in model predictions of F(stein) and D. Both the electrical analogue and the hydraulic system approach for the flow and storage model were successfully calibrated and validated for the case of a young beech tree (Fagus sylvatica L.). Use of an objective model selection criterion revealed that the flow and storage model based on the electrical analogue approach yielded better predictions.

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