ArticleAnnals of botany2020
Quantifying the importance of a realistic tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) leaflet shape for 3-D light modelling.
Article in Annals of botany, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- When Does Directional Reflectance Matter? Evaluating BRDF Effects in Plant Canopy Light Simulations.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Consequences of interplant trait variation for canopy light absorption and photosynthesis.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Towards a Stochastic Model to Simulate Grapevine Architecture: A Case Study on Digitized Riesling Vines Considering Effects of Elevated COPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Analyzing the Impact of Greenhouse Planting Strategy and Plant Architecture on Tomato Plant Physiology and Estimated Dry Matter.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Integrating terrestrial laser scanning with functional-structural plant models to investigate ecological and evolutionary processes of forest communities.Annals of botany · 2021Article
- Two decades of functional-structural plant modelling: now addressing fundamental questions in systems biology and predictive ecology.Annals of botany · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsLeaflet shapes of tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum) have been reduced to simple geometric shapes in previous functional-structural plant models (FSPMs) in order to facilitate measurements and reduce the time required to reconstruct the plant virtually. The level of error that such simplifications introduce remains unaddressed. This study therefore aims to quantify the modelling error associated with simplifying leaflet shapes.
methodsRealistic shapes were implemented in a static tomato FSPM based on leaflet scans, and simulation results were compared to simple geometric shapes used in previous tomato FSPMs in terms of light absorption and gross photosynthesis, for both a single plant and a glasshouse scenario. KEY
resultsThe effect of simplifying leaflet shapes in FSPMs leads to small but significant differences in light absorption, alterations of canopy light conditions and differences in photosynthesis. The magnitude of these differences depends on both the type of leaflet shape simplification used and the canopy shape and density. Incorporation of realistic shapes requires a small increase in initial measurement and modelling work to establish a shape database and comes at the cost of a slight increase in computation time.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that the error associated with leaflet shape simplification is small, but often unpredictable, and is affected by plant structure but also lamp placement, which is often a primary optimization goal of these static models. Assessment of the cost-benefit of realistic shape inclusion shows relatively little drawbacks for a decrease in model uncertainty.
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.