Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34118957›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2021

A practical guide to estimating the light extinction coefficient with nonlinear models-a case study on maize.

Josefina Lacasa, Trevor J Hefley, María E Otegui, Ignacio A Ciampitti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Josefina LacasaDepartment of Agronomy, Kansas State University, 1712 Claflin Rd, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA. lacasa@ksu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7201-7480
Trevor J HefleyDepartment of Statistics, Kansas State University, 205 Dickens Hall, 1116 Mid-Campus Drive North, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA.
María E OteguiDpto. de Producción Vegetal, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martín 4453 (C1417DSE), Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Ignacio A CiampittiDepartment of Agronomy, Kansas State University, 1712 Claflin Rd, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA. ciampitti@ksu.edu.

Funding

ANPCyT PICT 2671Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria PNCYO-1127042
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe fraction of intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (fPARi) is typically described with a non-linear function of leaf area index (LAI) and k, the light extinction coefficient. The parameter k is used to make statistical inference, as an input into crop models, and for phenotyping. It may be estimated using a variety of statistical techniques that differ in assumptions, which ultimately influences the numerical value k and associated uncertainty estimates. A systematic search of peer-reviewed publications for maize (Zea Mays L.) revealed: (i) incompleteness in reported estimation techniques; and (ii) that most studies relied on dated techniques with unrealistic assumptions, such as log-transformed linear models (LogTLM) or normally distributed data. These findings suggest that knowledge of the variety and trade-offs among statistical estimation techniques is lacking, which hinders the use of modern approaches such as Bayesian estimation (BE) and techniques with appropriate assumptions, e.g. assuming beta-distributed data.

resultsThe parameter k was estimated for seven maize genotypes with five different methods: least squares estimation (LSE), LogTLM, maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) assuming normal distribution, MLE assuming beta distribution, and BE assuming beta distribution. Methods were compared according to the appropriateness for statistical inference, point estimates' properties, and predictive performance. LogTLM produced the worst predictions for fPARi, whereas both LSE and MLE with normal distribution yielded unrealistic predictions (i.e. fPARi < 0 or > 1) and the greatest coefficients for k. Models with beta-distributed fPARi (either MLE or Bayesian) were recommended to obtain point estimates.

conclusionEach estimation technique has underlying assumptions which may yield different estimates of k and change inference, like the magnitude and rankings among genotypes. Thus, for reproducibility, researchers must fully report the statistical model, assumptions, and estimation technique. LogTLMs are most frequently implemented, but should be avoided to estimate k. Modeling fPARi with a beta distribution was an absent practice in the literature but is recommended, applying either MLE or BE. This workflow and technique comparison can be applied to other plant canopy models, such as the vertical distribution of nitrogen, carbohydrates, photosynthesis, etc. Users should select the method balancing benefits and tradeoffs matching the purpose of the study.

Indexed as

Bayesian modelsLight attenuationNon-linear modelsRadiation interceptionZea Mays L.

Identifiers

PMID34118957
PMCPMC8196512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.