Plant Light Interception Can Be Explained via Computed Tomography Scanning: Demonstration with Pyramidal Cedar (Thuja occidentalis, Fastigiata)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Light interception by the leaf canopy is a key aspect of plant photosynthesis, which helps mitigate the greenhouse effect via atmospheric CO(2) recycling. The relationship between plant light interception and leaf area was traditionally modelled with the Beer-Lambert law, until the spatial distribution of leaves was incorporated through the fractal dimension of leafless plant structure photographed from the side allowing maximum appearance of branches and petioles. However, photographs of leafless plants are two-dimensional projections of three-dimensional structures, and sampled plants were cut at the stem base before leaf blades were detached manually, so canopy development could not be followed for individual plants. Therefore, a new measurement and modelling approach were developed to explain plant light interception more completely and precisely, based on appropriate processing of computed tomography (CT) scanning data collected for developing canopies. METHODS: Three-dimensional images of canopies were constructed from CT scanning data. Leaf volumes (LV) were evaluated from complete canopy images, and fractal dimensions (FD) were estimated from skeletonized leafless images. The experimental plant species is pyramidal cedar (Thuja occidentalis, Fastigiata). KEY RESULTS: The three-dimensional version of the Beer-Lambert law based on FD alone provided a much better explanation of plant light interception (R(2) = 0.858) than those using the product LV*FD (0.589) or LV alone (0.548). While values of all three regressors were found to increase over time, FD in the Beer-Lambert law followed the increase in light interception the most closely. The delayed increase of LV reflected the appearance of new leaves only after branches had lengthened and ramified. CONCLUSIONS: The very strong correlation obtained with FD demonstrates that CT scanning data contain fundamental information about the canopy architecture geometry. The model can be used to identify crops and plantation trees with improved light interception and productivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".