Files
maestria_docs/DOCUMENTACION/SERGIO/TODO/Mi biblioteca/files/31/.zotero-ft-cache

149 lines
6.6 KiB
Plaintext
Executable File
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

Skip to Main Content
Taylor and Francis Online
Log in | Register
Cart
Home
All Journals
Journal of Horticultural Science
List of Issues
Volume 69, Issue 5
Dry-matter partitioning in a tomato crop ....
Search in:
Advanced search
Publication Cover
Journal of Horticultural Science Volume 69, 1994 - Issue 5
Journal homepage
4
Views
21
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles
Dry-matter partitioning in a tomato crop: Comparison of two simulation models
E. Heuvelink Wageningen Agricultural University, Department of Horticulture, Haagsteeg 3, 6708 PM, Wageningen, The Netherlands & N. Bertin Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Unite de Bioclimatologie, Centre de Recherches d'Avignon, BP 91, F84143, Montfavet Cedex, France
Pages 885-903 | Accepted 20 Mar 1994, Published online: 27 Nov 2015
Download citation
https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.1994.11516525
Seleccionar idioma
Translator disclaimer
References
Citations
Metrics
Reprints & Permissions
Get access /doi/pdf/10.1080/14620316.1994.11516525?needAccess=true
SUMMARY
TOMSIM(l.O) and TOMGRO(I.O) are two dynamic models for tomato growth and development. Their sub-models for dry-matter distribution between leaves, stem and fruits were compared and discussed. In both models the simulated dry-matter distribution is regulated by the relative sink strengths of the plant organs. These sink strengths are quantified by the potential growth rates of individual organs, i.e. the growth rates under conditions of non-limiting assimilate supply. This approach is general and not limited to the tomato crop. In TOMGRO(J.O), fruits, leaves and internodes stay within age classes and move from class to class during development, whereas in TOMSIM (1.0), record is kept of every fruit truss separately but leaves and internodes are lumped together (i.e. no record of weight or leaf area per age class as in TOMGRO(l.O)). In TOMSIM(1.0), vegetative sink strength is a constant, whereas in TOMGRO(l.0) it is calculated from potential area expansion rate of leaves and specific leaf area. In both models, the ratio between leaf growth and stem growth is constant. In TOMGRO(l.O) there is a feed-back mechanism which controls the vegetative/generative balance: a higher demand/supply ratio for assimilates induces higher fruit abortion rates. In TOMSIM(l.O) the number of fruits set per truss is not simulated, but is an input to the model. TOM SIM (1.0) functions representing flowering rate, fruit growth period, vegetative sink strength and fruit sink strength were compared with similar TOMGRO(l.O) functions, in their dependence on temperature and physiological plant age. A sensitivity analysis was made for the effects of temperature, flowering rate, and fruit and vegetative sink strengths on dry-matter distribution for both models. A validation of both models was based upon periodic destructive harvests in: 1) a greenhouse experiment in Wageningen, using a round tomato cultivar, consisting of a control treatment and a treatment where every second truss was removed at anthesis, and 2) two greenhouse experiments conducted in Montfavet, using a beefsteak tomato cultivar. Daily shoot dry-weight increase, average 24 h greenhouse temperatures and numbers of fruits set per truss (in TOMGRO(l.O) numbers of flowers per truss) were inputs to the models. In general dry-matter distribution was simulated well by both models for the cultivar and conditions where they were developed. TOMGRO(1.0)'s poor performance in one of the validations resulted from the absence of an assimilate storage pool. To achieve reasonable agreement between measurements and simulations for situations other than where the models were developed, parameter adjustments had to be made, most likely reflecting cultivar differences. Strong and weak points of both models are discussed.
Previous article View issue table of contents Next article
More Share Options
Sample our Environment & Agriculture journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days
Reach more readers
Banner ad for Taylor & Francis journal suggester
Further reading
People also read
Recommended articles
Cited by
21
Dry-matter production in a tomato crop: comparison of two simulation models
N. Bertin et al.
Journal of Horticultural Science
Published online: 27 Nov 2015
Evaluation and adaptation of TOMGRO model to Italian tomato protected crops
L Bacci et al.
New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science
Published online: 29 May 2012
Influence of sub-optimal temperature on tomato growth and yield: a review
Der Van Ploeg et al.
The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology
Published online: 7 Nov 2015
Browse journals by subject
Back to top
Area Studies
Arts
Behavioral Sciences
Bioscience
Built Environment
Communication Studies
Computer Science
Development Studies
Earth Sciences
Economics, Finance, Business & Industry
Education
Engineering & Technology
Environment & Agriculture
Environment and Sustainability
Food Science & Technology
Geography
Health and Social Care
Humanities
Information Science
Language & Literature
Law
Mathematics & Statistics
Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health
Museum and Heritage Studies
Physical Sciences
Politics & International Relations
Social Sciences
Sports and Leisure
Tourism, Hospitality and Events
Urban Studies
Information for
Authors
Editors
Librarians
Societies
Open access
Overview
Open journals
Open Select
Cogent OA
Dove Medical Press
F1000Research
Help and info
Help & contact
Newsroom
Commercial services
Advertising information
All journals
Books
Keep up to date
Register to receive personalised research and resources by email
Sign me up
Taylor and Francis Group Facebook page
Taylor and Francis Group Twitter page
Taylor and Francis Group Linkedin page
Taylor and Francis Group Youtube page
Taylor and Francis Group Weibo page
Copyright © 2021 Informa UK Limited Privacy policy Cookies Terms & conditions Accessibility
Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067
5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG
Taylor and Francis Group
Accept
We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies.