Parameter stability of the functional-structural plant model GREENLAB as affected by variation within populations, among seasons and among growth stages.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS It is increasingly accepted that crop models, if they are to simulate genotype-specific behaviour accurately, should simulate the morphogenetic process generating plant architecture. A functional-structural plant model, GREENLAB, was previously presented and validated for maize. The model is based on a recursive mathematical process, with parameters whose values cannot be measured directly and need to be optimized statistically. This study aims at evaluating the stability of GREENLAB parameters in response to three types of phenotype variability: (1) among individuals from a common population; (2) among populations subjected to different environments (seasons); and (3) among different development stages of the same plants. METHODS Five field experiments were conducted in the course of 4 years on irrigated fields near Beijing, China. Detailed observations were conducted throughout the seasons on the dimensions and fresh biomass of all above-ground plant organs for each metamer. Growth stage-specific target files were assembled from the data for GREENLAB parameter optimization. Optimization was conducted for specific developmental stages or the entire growth cycle, for individual plants (replicates), and for different seasons. Parameter stability was evaluated by comparing their CV with that of phenotype observation for the different sources of variability. A reduced data set was developed for easier model parameterization using one season, and validated for the four other seasons. KEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The analysis of parameter stability among plants sharing the same environment and among populations grown in different environments indicated that the model explains some of the inter-seasonal variability of phenotype (parameters varied less than the phenotype itself), but not inter-plant variability (parameter and phenotype variability were similar). Parameter variability among developmental stages was small, indicating that parameter values were largely development-stage independent. The authors suggest that the high level of parameter stability observed in GREENLAB can be used to conduct comparisons among genotypes and, ultimately, genetic analyses.

[1]  M. Dingkuhn,et al.  Leaf Blade Dimensions of Rice (Oryza sativa L. and Oryza glaberrima Steud.). Relationships between Tillers and the Main Stem , 2001 .

[2]  François Houllier,et al.  Fitting a Functional-Structural growth model with plant architectural data , 2003 .

[3]  C. Donald The breeding of crop ideotypes , 1968, Euphytica.

[4]  P. de Reffye,et al.  Parameter optimization and field validation of the functional-structural model GREENLAB for maize. , 2006, Annals of botany.

[5]  D. Luquet,et al.  EcoMeristem, a model of morphogenesis and competition among sinks in rice. 1. Concept, validation and sensitivity analysis. , 2006, Functional plant biology : FPB.

[6]  Loïc Pagès,et al.  GRAAL: a model of GRowth, Architecture and carbon ALlocation during the vegetative phase of the whole maize plant: Model description and parameterisation , 2003 .

[7]  Philippe de Reffye,et al.  Environmental and genetic control of morphogenesis in crops: towards models simulating phenotypic plasticity , 2005 .

[8]  F.W.T. Penning de Vries,et al.  Concepts for a new plant type for direct seeded flooded tropical rice. , 1991 .

[9]  P. de Reffye,et al.  A dynamic, architectural plant model simulating resource-dependent growth. , 2004, Annals of botany.

[10]  F. Andrade,et al.  Harvest index stability of Argentinean maize hybrids released between 1965 and 1993 , 2003 .

[11]  Jean-Louis Drouet,et al.  MODICA and MODANCA: modelling the three-dimensional shoot structure of graminaceous crops from two methods of plant description , 2003 .

[12]  P. Kroonenberg,et al.  Investigating the physiological bases of predictable and unpredictable genotype by environment interactions using three-mode pattern analysis , 2002 .

[13]  L. S. Pereira,et al.  Crop evapotranspiration : guidelines for computing crop water requirements , 1998 .

[14]  Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz,et al.  Development models of herbaceous plants for computer imagery purposes , 1988, SIGGRAPH.

[15]  Martin J. Kropff,et al.  Crop modeling, QTL mapping, and their complementary role in plant breeding , 2003 .

[16]  Joe T. Ritchie,et al.  Temperature and Crop Development , 1991 .

[17]  D. Luquet,et al.  EcoMeristem, a model of morphogenesis and competition among sinks in rice. 2. Simulating genotype responses to phosphorus deficiency. , 2006, Functional plant biology : FPB.

[18]  Graeme L. Hammer,et al.  Future contributions of crop modelling—from heuristics and supporting decision making to understanding genetic regulation and aiding crop improvement , 2002 .

[19]  Alain Charcosset,et al.  Combining Quantitative Trait Loci Analysis and an Ecophysiological Model to Analyze the Genetic Variability of the Responses of Maize Leaf Growth to Temperature and Water Deficit1 , 2003, Plant Physiology.

[20]  H. Sinoquet,et al.  Characterization of the Light Environment in Canopies Using 3D Digitising and Image Processing , 1998 .

[21]  F. Tardieu Virtual plants: modelling as a tool for the genomics of tolerance to water deficit. , 2003, Trends in plant science.

[22]  M. Dingkuhn Modelling concepts for the phenotypic plasticity of dry matter and nitrogen partitioning in rice , 1996 .

[23]  Paul C. Struik,et al.  An architectural model of spring wheat: Evaluation of the effects of population density and shading on model parameterization and performance , 2007 .

[24]  K. McConnaughay,et al.  Interpreting phenotypic plasticity : the importance of ontogeny , 2002 .