1992
DOI: 10.1016/0168-1923(92)90061-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A note of caution concerning the relationship between cumulated intercepted solar radiation and crop growth

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
23
0
2

Year Published

1993
1993
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 97 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
23
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Since photosynthesis is a quantum-dependent process, it is intuitively obvious (although disputed by Demetriades-Shah et al 1992; see the replies by Arkenbauer et al 1994, Kiniry 1994, Monteith 1994 that there is likely to be some relationship between the solar energy incident on the canopy of a plant community, and dry matter production. This has been explicitly recognised, and extensively exploited, in numerous models of crop and forest growth (see next section), based on PAR absorption by canopies and leaf photosynthetic characteristics.…”
Section: Evolution Of the E Modelmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Since photosynthesis is a quantum-dependent process, it is intuitively obvious (although disputed by Demetriades-Shah et al 1992; see the replies by Arkenbauer et al 1994, Kiniry 1994, Monteith 1994 that there is likely to be some relationship between the solar energy incident on the canopy of a plant community, and dry matter production. This has been explicitly recognised, and extensively exploited, in numerous models of crop and forest growth (see next section), based on PAR absorption by canopies and leaf photosynthetic characteristics.…”
Section: Evolution Of the E Modelmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…However, Haverkort & Harris (1986) found that the RUE for potato tuber dry matter varied from 0.64 to 1.42 g MJ -1 for a single cultivar. Kiniry et al (1989), Stockle & Kiniry (1990) and Demetriades-Shah et al (1992) all explained that these large variations in RUE indicate that daily growth cannot be fully explained by intercepted radiation alone and that other soil and atmospheric factors must be considered.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…As a first step in this study, we developed simple, objective methods to quantify understorey L ( L u ) from its biomass and nitrogen content, for eucalypt forest in south western Australia. We reasoned that as plants increase in size they will also increase in leaf area (Demetriades‐Shah et al. 1992), hence, biomass should be a primary predictor of L u .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%