Canopy Structure, Light Interception, and Photosynthesis in Maize
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amount and distribution of leaf area and leaf angles in a crop canopy determine how photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) is intercepted and consequently influences canopy photosynthesis and yield. Factors such as plant shape, plant populations, and row width will affect these leaf distributions and can occur in an almost infinite number of different combinations. To supplement experimentation, a mathematical model was developed to use measurements of leaf area and leaf angles in two dimensions (with height and across the row) to calculate PAR interception and canopy photosynthesis. Maize ( Zea mays L.) hybrids with phenotypic differences were planted at several plant populations to produce a wide range of two‐dimensional leaf area and leaf angle patterns. The extreme phenotypes, leafy and reduced stature , were included to vary plant height and number of leaves above the ear. Measurements of average PAR at various levels were made in seven different canopies and compared with calculations from the model ( R 2 of 0.68 and 0.92 for two sets of data). As well, measurements of PAR at 20‐cm increments on transects perpendicular to the row were made in three canopy types at three levels and compared with theoretical calculations ( R 2 = 0.74). A simple numerical experiment was run to demonstrate the utility of the model where daily canopy photosynthesis was calculated for two row widths and seven plant types. One result was that depending on row widths, plants with very upright leaves can have both the smallest and largest daily canopy photosynthesis.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 it