Abstract
Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the three major food crops and an important source of carbohydrates for maintaining food security around the world. Plant height (H), stem diameter (SD), leaf area index (LAI) and dry matter (DM) are important growth parameters that influence maize production. However, the combined effect of temperature and light on maize growth is rarely considered in crop growth models. Ten maize growth models based on the modified logistic growth equation (Mlog) and the Mitscherlich growth equation (Mit) were proposed to simulate the H, SD, LAI and DM of maize under different mulching practices based on experimental data from 2015–2018. Either the accumulative growing degree-days (AGDD), helio thermal units (HTU), photothermal units (PTU) or photoperiod thermal units (PPTU, first proposed here) was used as a single driving factor in the models; or AGDD was combined with either accumulative actual solar hours (ASS), accumulative photoperiod response (APR, first proposed here) or accumulative maximum possible sunshine hours (ADL) as the dual driving factors in the models. The model performances were evaluated using seven statistical indicators and a global performance index. The results showed that the three mulching practices significantly increased the maize growth rates and the maximum values of the growth curves compared with non-mulching. Among the four single factor-driven models, the overall performance of the MlogPTU Model was the best, followed by the MlogAGDD Model. The MlogPPTU Model was better than the MlogAGDD Model in simulating SD and LAI. Among the 10 models, the overall performance of the MlogAGDD–APR Model was the best, followed by the MlogAGDD–ASS Model. Specifically, the MlogAGDD–APR Model performed the best in simulating H and LAI, while the MlogAGDD–ADL and MlogAGDD–ASS models performed the best in simulating SD and DM, respectively. In conclusion, the modified logistic growth equations with AGDD and either APR, ASS or ADL as the dual driving factors outperformed the commonly used modified logistic growth model with AGDD as a single driving factor in simulating maize growth.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Three mulching practices increased maize growth rates and curve maxima versus non-mulching.
- Treatment
- three mulching practicese0
- Outcome
- maize growth rates and the maximum values of the growth curvese0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- non-mulchinge0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the three mulching practices significantly increased the maize growth rates and the maximum values of the growth curves compared with non-mulching”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
MlogPTU had the best overall performance among single factor models.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the four single factor-driven models, the overall performance of the MlogPTU Model was the best, followed by the MlogAGDD Model.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
MlogPPTU simulated stem diameter and leaf area index better than MlogAGDD.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The MlogPPTU Model was better than the MlogAGDD Model in simulating SD and LAI.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
MlogAGDD–APR ranked best overall among the ten models.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the 10 models, the overall performance of the MlogAGDD–APR Model was the best, followed by the MlogAGDD–ASS Model.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
MlogAGDD–APR best simulated height and leaf area index.
Not reportedValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the MlogAGDD–APR Model performed the best in simulating H and LAI”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
MlogAGDD–ADL best simulated stem diameter.
Not reportedValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the MlogAGDD–ADL and MlogAGDD–ASS models performed the best in simulating SD and DM, respectively”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
MlogAGDD–ASS best simulated dry matter.
Not reportedValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the MlogAGDD–ADL and MlogAGDD–ASS models performed the best in simulating SD and DM, respectively”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Dual factor modified logistic models outperformed the AGDD only model for maize growth simulation.
- Outcome
- simulating maize growthe0
- Direction
- outperformede0
- Comparator
- modified logistic growth model with AGDD as a single driving factore0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the modified logistic growth equations with AGDD and either APR, ASS or ADL as the dual driving factors outperformed the commonly used modified logistic growth model with AGDD as a single driving factor in simulating maize growth”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
121 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
136 papers more in this group
See all 140 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.