ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Evaluation of the Reliability of the CCM-300 Chlorophyll Content Meter in Measuring Chlorophyll Content for Various Plant Functional Types.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proxima Green: RGB Color Metrics for Turfgrass Phenotyping in Controlled Conditions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessing interannual variation in leaf chlorophyll dynamics using optical and destructive methods with mixed-effects and additive modelling.Journal of plant research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chlorophyll fluorescence is a well-established method to estimate chlorophyll content in leaves. A popular fluorescence-based meter, the Opti-Sciences CCM-300 Chlorophyll Content Meter (CCM-300), utilizes the fluorescence ratio F735/F700 and equations derived from experiments using broadleaf species to provide a direct, rapid estimate of chlorophyll content used for many applications. We sought to quantify the performance of the CCM-300 relative to more intensive methods, both across plant functional types and years of use. We linked CCM-300 measurements of broadleaf, conifer, and graminoid samples in 2018 and 2019 to high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and/or spectrophotometric (Spec) analysis of the same leaves. We observed a significant difference between the CCM-300 and HPLC/Spec, but not between HPLC and Spec. In comparison to HPLC, the CCM-300 performed better for broadleaves (r = 0.55, RMSE = 154.76) than conifers (r = 0.52, RMSE = 171.16) and graminoids (r = 0.32, RMSE = 127.12). We observed a slight deterioration in meter performance between years, potentially due to meter calibration. Our results show that the CCM-300 is reliable to demonstrate coarse variations in chlorophyll but may be limited for cross-plant functional type studies and comparisons across years.
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.