Relationship between a nondestructive and an extraction method for measuring chlorophyll contents in cowpea leaves

Development of an android app to estimate chlorophyll content of corn leaves based on contact imaging

“…Destructive methods like Kjeldahl tissue analysis to determine nutrients status, in addition to their high costs, cannot be used as a way for variable rate fertilising (i.e., real-time application) because of time lag between collecting tissue sampling and obtaining results (Piekielek et al, 1995;Muñoz-Huerta et al, 2013). Chlorophyll meters (CMs) have been used by many researchers as a non-destructive method to measure the chlorophyll content and estimate the nitrogen value of agricultural crops (Richardson et al, 2002;Chang and Robison, 2003;Murillo-Amador et al, 2004;Scharf et al, 2006;Uddling et al, 2007;Miao et al, 2009). CMs use two wavebands to assess chlorophyll content, infrared light centred 930 nm and red light centred 650 nm (Blackmer et al, 1994).…”

Cowpea leaf width correlates with above ground biomass across diverse environments

“…Leaf length and width were measured on five leaves per genotype using a ruler (Figure 1). Leaf chlorophyll content was estimated with a chlorophyll meter (SPAD‐502, Konica Minolta Sensing) by averaging six measurements per leaf from five leaves per genotype (Murillo‐Amador et al, 2004). All leaf measurements were performed on the most recently fully developed, nonsenescing central leaflet at the fifth to seventh node down from the top of the canopy depending on the cowpea line.…”

“…Sensing) by averaging six measurements per leaf from five leaves per genotype(Murillo-Amador et al, 2004). All leaf measurements were performed on the most recently fully developed, nonsenescing central leaflet at the fifth to seventh node down from the top of the canopy depending on the cowpea line.…”

Assessing diversity in canopy architecture, photosynthesis, and water‐use efficiency in a cowpea magic population

“…Genotypes are colored based on clustering ( Figure 5) with clusters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 shown in light blue, green, yellow, dark blue, and red explained about 50% of the variation in A canopy,ground and A canopy,LA in genotypes in cluster 5, which were characterized by high LA (Table 2). Using published relationships between SPAD values and chlorophyll content for coffee plants (Torres Netto, Campostrini, De Oliveira, & Bressan-Smith, 2005), citrus cultivars (Jifon, Syvertsen, & Whaley, 2005), soybeans (Markwell, Osterman, & Mitchell, 1995), Castanopsis carlessi (Wang et al, 2009), Spathiphyllum Schott (Wang, Chen, & Li, 2004), and cowpeas (Murillo-Amador et al, 2004), the reduction in leaf greenness associated with the increase in canopy photosynthesis observed in the cluster 5 could have represented a 30 ± 7% reduction in leaf chlorophyll content (μmol/m 2 ). The resulting enhanced canopy photosynthesis could be explained by increased transmission of light to the lower canopy, due to a reduced leaf absorbance.…”

“…One possible explanation could be the 100-500 μmol/m 2 range of chlorophyll content assumed in soybean study (Walker et al, 2017). Based on the relationship performed by Murillo-Amador et al (2004) in 60 cowpea cultivars, the range of chlorophyll content observed in the cluster 5 is estimated at 537-656 μmol/m 2 , which is within the range of values commonly reported for cowpea (Jemo et al, 2017;Singh & Raja Reddy, 2011). The soybean study also assumed that chlorophyll declined from the top to the bottom of the canopy (Drewry et al, 2010;Walker et al, 2017), which may not be representative of field observations (Ciganda, Gitelson, & Schepers, 2008;Kong et al, 2017;Winterhalter, Mistele, & Schmidhalter, 2012).…”