ArticleInternational journal of biometeorology2006
Changes in stomatal conductance and net photosynthesis during phenological development in spring wheat: implications for gas exchange modelling.
Article in International journal of biometeorology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved construction and applicability analysis of stomatal conductance model for cotton under drip irrigation in Northern Xinjiang.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- The rise of phenology with climate change: an evaluation of IJB publications.International journal of biometeorology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gas exchange was measured from 1 month before the onset of anthesis until the end of grain filling in field-grown spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L., cv. Vinjett, in southern Sweden. Two g ( s ) models were parameterised using these data: one Jarvis-type multiplicative g ( s ) model (J-model), and one combined stomatal-photosynthesis model (L-model). In addition, the multiplicative g ( s ) model parameterisation for wheat used within the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP-model) was tested and evaluated. The J-model performed well (R (2)=0.77), with no systematic pattern of the residuals plotted against the driving variables. The L-model explained a larger proportion of the variation in g ( s ) data when observations of A (n) were used as input data (R (2)=0.71) compared to when A (n) was modelled (R (2)=0.53). In both cases there was a systematic model failure, with g (s) being over- and underestimated before and after anthesis, respectively. This pattern was caused by the non-parallel changes in g ( s ) and A (n) during plant phenological development, with A (n) both peaking and starting to decline earlier as compared to g ( s ). The EMEP-model accounted for 41% of the variation in g ( s ) data, with g ( s ) being underestimated after anthesis. We conclude that, under the climatic conditions prevailing in southern Scandinavia, the performance of the combined stomatal-photosynthesis approach is hampered by the non-parallel changes in g ( s ) and A (n), and that the phenology function of the EMEP-model, having a sharp local maximum at anthesis, should be replaced by a function with a broad non-limiting period after anthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.