Abstract
ABSTRACT Indirect estimates of leaf area from measurements with three commercially available instruments (DEMON, LAI‐2000 and Sunfleck Ceptometer) were compared with directly measured areas of individual Retama sphaerocarpa bushes. The three indirect methods gave good estimates of the total surface area of individual bushes. For the DEMON, the method of log‐linear averaging of transmitted radiation gave estimates closer to directly measured surface area than the method of averaging transmission linearly. For the LAI‐2000, estimated surface area index multiplied by canopy projected area gave the best agreement with directly measured values. For measurements with the Sunfleck Ceptometer, values of surface area estimated from the transmission of photosynthetic quantum flux density, without correcting for diffuse radiation, gave the best agreement with directly measured values. Surface areas estimated by the three instruments were not significantly different from directly measured total (leaf + branch + stem) surface areas. Leaf surface area could be calculated from estimated total surface area minus directly measured branch surface area. Measured branch surface area was linearly related to canopy projected area.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
All three indirect methods gave good estimates of total bush surface area.
- Taxon
- Retama sphaerocarpa
Retama sphaerocarpae1 - Outcome
- estimates of the total surface areae0
- Comparator
- three indirect methodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The three indirect methods gave good estimates of the total surface area of individual bushes”
e1“individual Retama sphaerocarpa bushes”
Claim · model-written summary
For DEMON, log-linear averaging was closer to measured surface area than linear averaging.
- Taxon
- Retama sphaerocarpaRetama sphaerocarpae1
- Outcome
- estimates closer to directly measured surface areae0
- Direction
- closere0
- Comparator
- method of averaging transmission linearlye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the DEMON, the method of log‐linear averaging of transmitted radiation gave estimates closer to directly measured surface area than the method of averaging transmission linearly”
e1“individual Retama sphaerocarpa bushes”
Claim · model-written summary
For LAI-2000, multiplying surface area index by canopy projected area best agreed with measured values.
- Taxon
- Retama sphaerocarpaRetama sphaerocarpae1
- Outcome
- best agreement with directly measured valuese0
- Comparator
- directly measured valuese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the LAI‐2000, estimated surface area index multiplied by canopy projected area gave the best agreement with directly measured values”
e1“individual Retama sphaerocarpa bushes”
Claim · model-written summary
For the Sunfleck Ceptometer, estimates without diffuse-radiation correction agreed best with measurements.
- Taxon
- Retama sphaerocarpaRetama sphaerocarpae1
- Outcome
- best agreement with directly measured valuese0
- Comparator
- directly measured valuese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For measurements with the Sunfleck Ceptometer, values of surface area estimated from the transmission of photosynthetic quantum flux density, without correcting for diffuse radiation, gave the best agreement with directly measured values”
e1“individual Retama sphaerocarpa bushes”
Claim · model-written summary
Surface-area estimates from the three instruments did not differ significantly from directly measured total surface area.
- Taxon
- Retama sphaerocarpaRetama sphaerocarpae1
- Outcome
- Surface arease0
- Direction
- not significantly differente0
- Comparator
- directly measured total (leaf + branch + stem) surface arease0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Surface areas estimated by the three instruments were not significantly different from directly measured total (leaf + branch + stem) surface areas”
e1“individual Retama sphaerocarpa bushes”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf surface area could be calculated by subtracting measured branch area from estimated total area.
- Taxon
- Retama sphaerocarpaRetama sphaerocarpae1
- Outcome
- Leaf surface areae0
- Comparator
- directly measured branch surface areae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf surface area could be calculated from estimated total surface area minus directly measured branch surface area”
e1“individual Retama sphaerocarpa bushes”
Claim · model-written summary
Measured branch surface area was linearly related to canopy projected area.
- Taxon
- Retama sphaerocarpaRetama sphaerocarpae1
- Outcome
- Measured branch surface areae0
- Comparator
- canopy projected areae0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Measured branch surface area was linearly related to canopy projected area”
e1“individual Retama sphaerocarpa bushes”