A mechanistic model for nitrogen-limited plant growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Nitrogen is often regarded as a limiting factor to plant growth in various ecosystems. Understanding how nitrogen drives plant growth has numerous theoretical and practical applications in agriculture and ecology. In 2004, Göran I. Ågren proposed a mechanistic model of plant growth from a biochemical perspective. However, neglecting respiration and assuming stable and balanced growth made the model unrealistic for plants growing in natural conditions. The aim of the present paper is to extend Ågren's model to overcome these limitations. METHODS: We improved Ågren's model by incorporating the respiratory process and replacing the stable and balanced growth assumption with a three-parameter power function to describe the relationship between nitrogen concentration (Nc) and biomass. The new model was evaluated based on published data from three studies on corn (Zea mays) growth. KEY RESULTS: Remarkably, the mechanistic growth model derived in this study is mathematically equivalent to the classical Richards model, which is the most widely used empirical growth model. The model agrees well with empirical plant growth data. CONCLUSIONS: Our model provides a mechanistic interpretation of how nitrogen drives plant growth. It is very robust in predicting growth curves and the relationship between Nc and relative growth rate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".