KIEFER, DALE A. A reply to the comment by Bannister

Description

of A comment models. two the of validity or accuracy the assessing for criterion valid a not is It oranges. and ples sity: ap- of comparison a is photoperiods, ferent dif- at & and K+ for values compares which inten- light in changes with yield quantum in changes relative describes that term a by comment, Bannister’s of 1 Figure 4). (Eq. 0 to proportional be to model (1980) Laws multiplied is E which in equation Menten Michaelis- the simply is 7 Equation value. and Bannister the by assumed is growth ited light-lim- under value Its growing. are cells maximal its half is rate growth the which at light to exposure daily effective of level the which at intensity light the with creases the as defined is KEr model. original the in in- value whose variable a is & intensity, and daylength of independent constant, a were they as defined are Rp + I-C, and K4 be to assumed is I& Although tosynthesis. pho- of curve light the of parameter uration light-sat- the is which &,, to related directly not is I&, assertion, his to Contrary aptation. photoad- of process the characterizes that by replaced is 8 Eq. parameter a is it thus value; maximal its half ’ EI‘K, + E) + K,,(K, RJmaxEI + 01, = is growth state steady of yield quantum the Kti which at intensity light the is it Specifically, intensities. light of range a over growth state R, + CL, steady for yield quantum photosynthetic by replaced of parameter light-saturation a instead, is 7 equation comment, ...

Informations

• Publié par: Shawyar
• Nombre de lectures: 15
• Langue: English

Extrait