Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow An erratum has been published
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Poorter, H.
Right arrow Articles by Garnier, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Poorter, H.
Right arrow Articles by Garnier, E.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Poorter, H.
Right arrow Articles by Garnier, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1996 Oxford University Press

RESEARCH-ARTICLE

Plant growth analysis: an evaluation of experimental design and computational methods

Hendrik Poorter1,3 and Eric Garnier2

1Department of Plant Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Utrecht PO Box 800.84, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands
2Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive CNRS, BP 5051, F-34033 Montpellier Cedex 1, France

3To whom correspondence should be addressed: + 31 30 251 8366. E-mail: H.Poorter@boev.biol.ruu.nl

Various aspects of the experimental design and computational methods used in plant growth analysis were investigated. This was done either analytically, or by repeatedly simulating harvests from theoretical populations upon which were imposed the underlying growth curves as well as the variability in plant material.

In the first part the consequences of neglecting an In-transformation of the primary weight data were considered. T-tests are affected in such a way that significant differences between treatments show up less readily than in transformed data. A more fundamental point is that most hypotheses on plant weight concern proportional effects rather than absolute ones. In these cases, an In-transformation prior to a statistical test is required anyway. Secondly, the accuracy of average RGR estimates was evaluated. Variability in RGR estimation increases linearly with variability in the plant material. It is also strongly dependent on the time interval between harvests and the number of replicates per harvest. Even with conservative values for plant weight variability, the chances of arriving at aberrant RGR estimates are rather high. Therefore, it is suggested that the variability in the population is decreased deliberately, unless variability within the population is itself of biological interest. Thirdly, three computational methods to fit dry weight progressions and describe time trends in RGR and related growth parameters were evaluated. Although complicated to calculate, the Richards function was superior to polynomials fitted through either the weight data (‘polynomial’ approach), or the classically derived RGR values (‘combined’ approach).

Key words: Plant growth analysis, experimental design, computational methods, relative growth rate, net assimilation rate


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
W. A. HOFFMANN and H. POORTER
Avoiding Bias in Calculations of Relative Growth Rate
Ann. Bot., July 1, 2002; 90(1): 37 - 42.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.