ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of four light-response models using relative curvature measures of nonlinearity.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanistic insights into photosynthetic linear electron transport flow: a mathematical modeling approach.Photosynthesis research · 2026Article
- Photosynthetic Light Response Curve and Photosynthetic Performance of Cacao (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Performance assessment of three simplified Gielis equations in quantifying the geometries of lanceolate bamboo leaves.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Characterizing the plant functional traits of coffee agroecosystems in Indonesia.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.