Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39402162›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Comparison of four light-response models using relative curvature measures of nonlinearity.

Ke He, Lin Wang, David A Ratkowsky, Peijian Shi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Ke He *School of Architecture, Huaqiao University, Xiamen, 361021, China.
Lin Wang *Co-Innovation Centre for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, Bamboo Research Institute, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, 210037, China.
David A RatkowskyTasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia.
Peijian ShiCo-Innovation Centre for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, Bamboo Research Institute, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, 210037, China. pjshi@njfu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Photosynthetic light response curves serve as powerful mathematical tools for quantitatively describing the rate of photosynthesis of plants in response to changes in irradiance. However, in practical applications, the daunting task of selecting an appropriate nonlinear model to accurately fit these curves persists as a significant challenge. Thus, there arises a need for a method to systematically evaluate the efficacy of such models. In the present study, four distinct nonlinear models, namely Exponential Model (EM), Rectangular Hyperbola Model (RHM), Nonrectangular Hyperbola Model (NHM), and Modified Rectangular Hyperbola Model (MRHM), were used to fit the relationship between light intensity and the rate of photosynthesis across 42 empirical datasets. The goodness of fit for each model was assessed using the root-mean-square error, and relative curvature measures of nonlinearity were employed to assess the nonlinear behavior of the models. In terms of goodness of fit, pairwise difference tests of the root-mean-square error revealed that there was little to choose among the four models, although RHM gave a marginally poorer fit. However, in terms of nonlinear behavior, EM not only provided the most favorable linear approximation performance at the global level, but also exhibited the best close-to-linear behavior at the individual parameter level among the four models across the 42 datasets. Consequently, the results strongly advocate for EM as the most suitable mathematical framework for fitting photosynthetic light response curves. These findings provide insights into the model assessment for nonlinear regression in describing the relationship between the photosynthetic rate and light intensity.

Indexed as

LightNonlinear DynamicsPhotosynthesisModels, BiologicalModels, TheoreticalClose-to-linear behaviorGoodness of fitNonlinear regressionParameter-effects curvaturePhotosynthetic light response curves

Identifiers

PMID39402162
PMCPMC11473669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.