- 29 _.

TBl..AU) TO rIOm:L GBOWTR OJ' BUCX\il1EA!r PLAB'T CABOPI FROn DINAlUC

POIlfT OF VIEW
Xaj!el-Bogataj and Andrej
Univerza Edvard.a Kardelja T' Ljubljani, lHotehniska
!altulteta, VTOZD za agronomijo, Ljubljana, JugoslaVijal)
A dynamic multi la;yered plant canopy model llUCKPRO based on lea!
temperature and irradiance is presented. It simulates the day to
day assimilation of photosynthetic material. Results are presented
and compared with observed productivity.
IBTBODUCTIOH
Growth and development of planta depend on their environment.
Their interrelations are studied with tva different groups of
methods, viz. empirical-statistical ones which originate from local
conditions and usually can not be generalised and dynamic ones which
have this important property. Dynamic methods usually named modele
simulate day to d&7 assimilation on the basis of energy and mass
'._--------
l)University Edvard Kardelj of Ljubljana, Department of
Agronomy Ljubljana, Yugoslavia
- ,0 -
exchange among the plants and their environment and among various
processes taking place in the plants themselves. Both groups ot,
methods deliver useful results but the last one should be pretered
being based on physical, chemical and biological principles.
In our york ve develop a dynamic model BUCKPBO as a computer
program. It simulates buckwheat canopy netphotosynthesis on the
basis ot input data, viz. meteorological data, ,buckwheat pllQlt
"
stand architecture and physiological characteristios. Serious
problem was the lack of adequate data for the buckwhea:t plant
canopy. It was solved partly with our own measurements a j f e ~
Bogataj, Knave 1985 and KajfeZ:.-Bogataj et a1. 1986) and com-
pleted from the literature (Evans 1978, Horie 1980, Hesketh
1980, r.;onteith 1975, Akberdina 1970).
THE BUCKPBO MODEL
BUCKPRO is a multi-layered buckwheat canopy model derived
trom CALPBOD model (Terjung 1981, Band et ale 1981, Kajfez-
Bogataj and Robie 1985). It ca.lculates primary net assimilation
(P) on the basis of leaf temperature (TL) and its irradiance
(SGR) using appropriate plant photosynthesis response curves:
LE L
- )1 -
The basic equation for the energy budget ot a leaf from which
lea! temperature is calculated can be written algebraically:
where
as
-
shortwave lea! absorptivity,
aL
- longvave leal absorptivity,
r - groulXl albedo
(F
lot- -
incident longvave radiation aoove lea! (w/m
2
),
It -
incident longvave radiation below lea! (lJ/
m
2
),
B
GR
global radiation (V/m
2
)
t
L
- lea! emissivity,
G - Btetan-Boltman constant (lJ/m
2
r;!1-),
TL -lea! temperature
LE - latent heat flux density (w/m
2
),
L - latent heat of vaporization (J/kg),
R - sensible heat flux density (W/m
2
).
The shortwave components of Eq. (2) can be derived by a
ot methods (Hocevar et ale 1982) tor unobstructed, horizontal
areas and several methods exist tor the simulation of longwave
radiation, as well (Bruntsaert, 1975).
The equivalent ot lea! transpiration is given as
and Papian, 1971):
Af
,
- 32 -
where:
A
f - ti!!erence between saturation vapor _onsities at
lea! and air tempera'ture,
r a - boundary layer resistance to vater dit'!usion (s!cm) ,
r
s
- stomatal resistance to water vapor cliffusion (s!cm).
Boundary layer resista.ucei.s calculated .trom lea! dimension, lea.!'
wiclth and wind velocity. Stoinatal resistance vas aBSUlIled as a
function only of lea! temperature ranging .trom a maximum at oOe
to a minimUm at opti.mum temperature (TOPT).
The last term in Eq. (2) calculates tho sensible heat flux of
the leaf:
H. h bT
c
where h
c
- convection coer.ticient,
A T - difference between lea! and. air
Convection coefficient (he) also depends on leaf dimensions and
rind. ve1oeity
Shortwave radiation arriving at a canopy level z on a horizontal
plane SGH(z) dimishes exponentially with increasing path:
- )) -
where EGa (top) global radiation at the top of the canopy,
x - radiation extinction coefficient,
LAI(Z)
- leaf index
Values of EGR(Z) are then used for calculation of TL (eq.(2 at
different heights ana for calculation of netphotosyntheeis via
plant response curves.
The model assumes optimal vater supplies, fertilizer
applications and disease control (Pig. 1) but can be addapted to
high evaporative demand.s by changing input parameters - for
example stomatal resistance.
Photosynthesis was then modeled 8S a reaction to different
lea! temperatures via a sistem of photosyntetic response curves,
(Fig. 2).
- 34 -
INPUT
,llTREME DULY
;Air tecperature
I
jir'i.nd velocity
~ l humidity
!
,
I
!
i
!
I
i
liEAH DAILY, OTHER
Declination
Rad.ius vector
Latitude
Solar constant
Elevation
Daily solar
radiation
Cloudiness
DABOPI-LEAF VARIABlES FOR
BUCK'JHEA.T
Leaf d.imensions
Upper threshold temperature
Optimum lea! temperature
Minimum stomatal resistance
Poliage albedo
Foliage emissivity
Leaf transmisivity
Soil albedo
S o ~ l conductivity
Radiation extinction
coefficient
Lea! area index
Stomatal resistances
Bound.ary layer resistance
Convection coefficient
for all layers
Attenuation and exchanges
of shortwave radiation
Attenuation and. exchanges
of longwave radiation
IEnergy budget
I of leaf layers
Iiterationsl
Leaf temperatures
for all layers
OUTPUT '
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
Net photosynthesis,
Sum of stand
Cumulative sum of stand
netphotosynthesis I
from response curvesl
rig. 1: Generalized BUCKPRO flow Chart, emphasiZing input and
output.
- :55 -
8 -
:.c
'1

'1J
,.., ,
6
0
5<3R '" VSW/rfi
u
01
5
oS
tf)
m
0
/. w
:J: 0
t-
3
z
lj)
0
2
t-
o
0
it
0
LEAF TEMPERAlURE ("C1
0
1)
'6 20 25 30 40
Fig. 2: Comparison of observed data and approximative net
photosynthesis response curve for Fagopyrum esculentam
Moench (PAR = 135 Wm-
2
, SGR = 275 Wm-
2
)
We estimated net photosynthesis response curves [0=
buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) from ty
Infra red gas analyser (IGRA, The Analytical Co.
Ltd., Type 225/2, Hoddeson, England) in climate chamber (Gorenje,
TGO, Titovo Velenje, Yugoslavia) as a function leaf temperatures,
measured by tele-termometers (YSI, Model 44 TZ, Yellow
Ohio, USA) and artificial PAR radiation measured by
(LI-COR, LI 1985). Frou. cata
- 36 -
we derived a family of approximative anallytical curves for
various values of SGR which were used in the model.
INPtJT CONSIDERA!rIOliS
The model uses three groups of input data astronomical
(solar radius vector, solar declination, latitude, elevation,
solar constant), meteorological (minimum and maximum daily air
temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, solar radiation and
cloud cover)and biological ones. Function generators were used
to interpolate hourly data from minimum and maximum values.
curves are determined for air temperature, wind speed,
relative humidity and the positive half of a sine curve for hourly
values of shortwave radiation. In our case we used decade
daily data from August 1at 1984 till October loth for Ljubljana.
meteorological data the air temperature and the solar
radiation have the influence on the results of the
model.
More troubles caused third group of input data determinning
bu:rwheat stand and lea! variables together with soil characte-
ristics (Pig. 1). The typical lea! dimension for buckwheat is
5 cm, the upper threshold temperature is 55C, optimal tempera-
ture accordins to our measurments (Fig. 2) was 20C. According
to (Larcher 1980, Ross 1981, Sivakumar 1984, Terjung
and 1950) the foliage albedo used was 0.1, foliage
- J7 -
emissivity 0.96, the radiation extinction coefficient 1, soil
albedo 0.15, soil conductivity 0.7 transmissivity 0.2
and minimal stomatal .resistance ; cms-
l

The most important parameters in this group are the leaf

area index and minimal stomatal resistance. Especially lea! area
index changes during the vegetation period. We studied this
parameter during buckwheat development in 1984 (Kajfez-Bogataj,
lCnavs 1985). Lear areas vere measured by automatic planimeter
type LI-COR (LI ;050 A) for each ot 5 stages ot stand development
(Table 1) and the results vere used as input to the model.
Table 1: Top and bottom lqer contributions to cumulative
-LA! during the growth period ot buckwheat, sown on
AUgust 1at, 1984 in LjUbljana
dqe .'iltter
sowing 18 ;2 46 60 74
L A I
top half 2.8 4 2.6
4.5
bottom half 1.8 3.6 0.9 0.8
CUMULATIVE LA!
4.5 4.6 7.6 ;.5 2.1
- J8 -
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
By means of the described model net vas
sLmulated using mean decade daily data for the vegetation period
August 1st - October loth, 1984 tor Ljubljana (300 m.L\.reather
condi tiona during that period vere not optimal, lov temperatures
and high precipitations vere characteristic tor the tirst halt
of .August and for the second halt ot: September. Dry
production vas therefore belov expectation.
The calculated values vere compared with observed data vhich
vere obtained on the basis of the regular sampling ot buckwheat
dry matter production between tvo consecutive dates.
F1gure 3 shows a comparison between calculated and measured
values of dry matter production. Both values correspond quite
vell though calculated values are higher than the observed ones.
Calculated total dry matter production is about 12 %higer than
the observed one.
- 39 -
LJUBLJANA - 1984
0
,/
.s::.
/
-.
/
,/

/
W
f
l-
I-
I
eo
<l:
I
>
/
cc I
0
/
60
..J
I
<f I
0
I
I-
/
---- CALCUlATED
4 /
/
/ OBSERVED
/
20
I
/
/
/
I
nAYS AFTER SOWING
10 20 30 JIJ 50 60 70
160
Fig. 3: Comparison of observed and simulated buckwheat total
dry matter production for.Ljubljana in 1984
- 40 -
The reasons vhy the calculated and observed data do not
mach can be traced in the folloving:
- Some important informations about experiJnental data are
incomplete(optical properties of stand, stomatal resistances
etc)
- The present knowledge of buckwheat reactions to the environment
is rather ucleared especially regarding storage and redistribution
of the produced assiJnilates.
- Experimental data obtained in the climatic chamber were transfe-
red to the ambient condi tiona. This assumption is uncertain and
needs testing.
- Rough observations of biomas production {the ones used did
not include root mass and senesence) and ~ enough good estimatee
of meteorological elements at the field site studied (now data
are from metecrological station about 10 km away) contributed to
discrepancy.
To obtain a better agreement between the results of the
model and observed productivity of buckwheat stand the further
research should be concentrated on the mentioned problems.
- 41 -
Beside presented results the model has numerous options
regarding experimental sites, atmospheric input and biological
characteristics. Weather data can be for specific years, for
long term climatic averages or tor prescribed (for instance
extreme) data, depending on user s objectives. nodel can be
applied also to various genotypes and buckwheat species by using
their physiological and plant architecture characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS
The netphotosynthesis model BUCKPRO of buckwheat stand
productivity as a function of environment is presented. Essential
input data concerrJUlg buckwheat physiological and stand
characteristies were measured and disseused.
A fairly good agreement between the simulated and observed
values of netphotosynthesis was obtained. The possible couses of
disagreement are disscused together with the options of the model.
be made to cbtain more acurate data on
stand parameters (stomatal resistance, optical properties, tAr)
during the growing period. Such data essential to any dynamic
modelling of plant growth and productivity.
- 42-
.A.CDO'WLEDGEME!lT
We are 'gratetul to DJ: ... J.. 1'1arlincic and !'lag. A. Gabricek'
tor their assistance.
REP'ElmJCES
1 .1kberdina R.H. (1970). Vlijanie temperatun vozduha na
dnevnoi hod intenzivnosti !otosinteza i intensivnosti
ekzosJIlOsa vodi iz listev grecihi. Selekcija i agrotehnika
greHhi, VllIIZX, Orel, 65-72.
2. Band et &1. (1981). Application ot a photos;ynthetic&1 model
to an agricultural region ot varied climate$: California.
Agric. Metoorol. 24, 3, 201-218.
3. Evans, L.T. (editor) (1978). Crop physiology, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge) 374 pp.
4. Hocevar .l. et all. (1982). Boneno obsevanjo v Sloveniji,
VDO BP', VTOZD za agronomijo, Zbornik BP', supl. 6, 97 pp.
5. Hocevar, .l., Xajtez-Bogataj, L. (1984) .lplikacija modela
neto!otosintezo na klimatsko razlicnih obmocjih Slovenije,
Zbornik BP' Univerze E.K. v Ljubljani"43, 9 3 ~
- 4) -
6. Horie, T. (1980). Photos;ynthesia and Primary Production
Rice Plants, Journal of .A.gricultural Meteorology, The
Societ)" of Agricultural Meteorology of Japan, Vol. 35, Ho. 4,
201-215.
7. J.D., (1980). Predicting photos;ynthesis for ecosystem
models, Vol. II., CBS Press, Boca Raton, Plorida, 279 pp.
8. L. and Knavs 11. (1985). Studies on the
production of dr7 matter in the community of buckwheat with
particular reference to lea! area. Pagopyrum (Ljubljana),
Vol. 5, 7-13.
9. Xajfel-Bogataj L. and D. Comparison of
observed and predicted forest productivity in various
climatic conditions in Slovenia, .Seminar on biometerological
methods, proceedings, Zbornik Bl,' supplement 10, 57-67.
10. I:.djfez-Bogataj L. et ale (1986). Analysis of different net
photos;ynthesis response curves for buckwheat. Pagopyrum, Vol.6
(in 'preparation)
11. Larcher W. (1980). Physiological Plant Ecology, Springer-
Verlag,' Hew York, 304 pp.
12. Ross, J., (1981). The radiation regime and architecture of
plant at ands, W. Junk Publishers, London 1981, 391 pp.
- 44 -
13. J.L., (1975). Vegetation and the Atmosphere,
Vol. 1., Principles, Academic Press, London, 2?8 pp.
14. Sivakumar, 1'1., (1984). Crop productivity in rela:tion to
interception of photosynthetically active radiation. Forest
and agricultural meteorology, Vol. 31, No.2, 131-14;.
15. Terjung, W.li , O'Rourke, (1980). An Economical
Model for use in Urban CliJnatology, Int. J. Biometeoro1ogy,
Vol. 24., no. 4, 281-291.