ArticlePeerJ2023
Estimating plant biomass in agroecosystems using a drop-plate meter.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reason for doing the work: Plant biomass is a commonly used metric to assess agricultural health and productivity. Removing plant material is the most accurate method to estimate plant biomass, but this approach is time consuming, labor intensive, and destructive. Previous attempts to use indirect methods to estimate plant biomass have been limited in breadth and/or have added complexity in data collection and/or modeling. A cost-effective, quick, accurate, and easy to use and understand approach is desirable for use by scientists and growers. Objectives: An indirect method for estimating plant biomass using a drop-plate meter was explored for use in broad array of crop systems. Methods: Drop-plate data collected by more than 20 individuals from 16 crop types on 312 farms across 15 states were used to generate models to estimate plant biomass among and within crop types. Results: A linear model using data from all crop types explained approximately 67% of the variation in plant biomass overall. This model performed differently among crop types and stand heights, which was owed to differences among sample sizes and farming between annual and perennial systems. Comparatively, the model using the combined dataset explained more variance in biomass than models generated with commodity specific data, with the exception of wheat. Conclusions: The drop-plate approach described here was inexpensive, quick, simple, and easy to interpret, and the model generated was robust to error and accurate across multiple crop types. The methods met all expectations for a broad-use approach to estimating plant biomass and are recommended for use across all agroecosystems included in this study. While it may be useful in crops beyond those included, validation is suggested before application.
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.