Growth and Leaf Area Index Simulation in Maize (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) Under Small-Scale Farm Conditions in a Sub-Saharan African Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different crop models including MAIZE Ceres, STICS and other approaches have been used to simulate leaf area index (LAI) in maize (Zea mays L.). These modeling tools require genotype-specific calibration procedures. Studies on modeling LAI dynamics under optimal growth conditions with yields close to the yield potential have remained scarce. In the present study, logistic and exponential approaches have been developed and evaluated for the simulation of LAI in maize in a savannah region of the DR-Congo. Data for the development and the evaluation of the model were collected manually by non-destructive method from small farmers’ field. The rate of expansion of the leaf surface and the rate of change of leaf senescence were also simulated. There were measurable variations among sites and varieties for the simulated height of maize plants. At all sites, the varieties with short plants were associated with expected superior performance based on simulation data. In general, the model underestimates the LAI based on observed values. LAI values for the genetically improved maize varieties (Salongo 2, MUS and AK) were greater than those of the unimproved local variety (Local). There were significant differences for K, b, Ti, LAI, Tf, and parameters among models and varieties. In all sites and for all varieties, the growth rate (b) was higher, while the rate of senescence (a) was lower compared to STICS estimates.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".