2014
DOI: 10.4336/2014.pfb.34.79.684
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Equações para estimar área foliar de folíolos de Acrocomia aculeta

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
15
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
3
15
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The equations that depend on the product (LxW) present higher coefficients of determination, lower AIC and lower standard error of the estimate for regression models in comparison with those observed for equations elaborated with L or W, except for the exponential model, in which the coefficient of determination was lower and the AIC was greater than the others (R 2 = 0.8434 and AIC = 1957.93) (Table 4). Similar results were found in the literature for other forest species, such as Amburana cearenses, Caesalpinia ferrea, and Caesalpinia pyramidalis (Silva et al, 2013), Schinopsis brasiliensis and Tabebuia aurea (Queiroz et al, 2013), Acrocomia aculeata (Mota et al, 2014) or even for cultivation species, such as Crambe abyssinica (Toebe et al, 2010), Mangifera indica (Lima et al, 2012), Malus domestica (Bosco et al, 2012) and Arachis hypogae (Cardozo et al, 2014), etc.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The equations that depend on the product (LxW) present higher coefficients of determination, lower AIC and lower standard error of the estimate for regression models in comparison with those observed for equations elaborated with L or W, except for the exponential model, in which the coefficient of determination was lower and the AIC was greater than the others (R 2 = 0.8434 and AIC = 1957.93) (Table 4). Similar results were found in the literature for other forest species, such as Amburana cearenses, Caesalpinia ferrea, and Caesalpinia pyramidalis (Silva et al, 2013), Schinopsis brasiliensis and Tabebuia aurea (Queiroz et al, 2013), Acrocomia aculeata (Mota et al, 2014) or even for cultivation species, such as Crambe abyssinica (Toebe et al, 2010), Mangifera indica (Lima et al, 2012), Malus domestica (Bosco et al, 2012) and Arachis hypogae (Cardozo et al, 2014), etc.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Therefore, the determination of the leaf area may be estimated using the dimensional parameters of the leaf (length, width, and length by width), which present good correlations with the leaf surface, adapting regression equations to obtain an estimate between the real leaf area and the linear dimensional parameters of the leaf without destroying the sample (Nascimento et al, 2002;Lizaso et al, 2003). This non-destructive method has been used successfully in several other studies, both in cultivated (Oliveira & Santos, 1995;Uzun & Çelik, 1999;Lizaso et al, 2003;Blanco & Folegatti, 2005;Demirsoy et al, 2005;Tsialtas & Maslaris, 2005;Antunes et al, 2008;Pompelli et al, 2012) and forest species (Silva et al, 2007(Silva et al, , 2013Cabezas-Gutiérrez et al, 2009;Queiroz et al, 2013;Mota et al, 2014;Keramatlou et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Candido, Coelho, Maia, Cunha, & Silva, 2013), Acrocomia aculeata Jacq. (Mota, Leite, & Cano, 2014), Merremia aegyptia (L.) Urban (Assis, Linhares, Souza, Pereira, & Almeida, 2015), and for cultivated species, such as Ananas comosus L. (Merrill) (Francisco, Diotto, Folegatti, Silva, & Piedade, 2014), Vigna unguiculata (L.) (Oliveira et al, 2015), Mangifera indica L. (Silva, Cabanez, Mendonça, Pereira, & Amaral, 2015), Prunus persica (L.) (Sachet, Penso, Pertille, Guerrezii, & Citadin, 2015), Smallanthus sonchifolius (Poepp.) H. Rob.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Leaf area can be determined by different methods and are classified as direct or indirect and destructive or non-destructive (MALAGI et al, 2010). Destructive methods are considered simple and accurate but use highcost equipment and take longer for analysis, as well as causing total damage to the plant (MOTA et al, 2014). In contrast, non-destructive methods allow accurate and quick multiple evaluations of the same plant without destroying the leaves, thus enabling plant growth to be monitored over space and time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%