Published

2014-05-01

Potential growing model for the standard carnation cv. Delphi

Modelo del crecimiento potencial de clavel estándar cv. Delphi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15446/agron.colomb.v32n2.43737

Keywords:

Dianthus caryophyllus, prediction, dry matter, partition coefficient, stems. (en)
Dianthus caryophyllus, predicción, materia seca, coeficiente de partición, tallos (es)

Authors

  • Miguel Ángel Lopez M. Centro de Investigación de la Caña de Azucar de Colombia (Cenicaña) - Program of Agronomy
  • Bernardo Chaves C. AgWeatherNet, Washington State University. Prosser, WA
  • Víctor Julio Flórez R. Universidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Bogotá - Faculty of Agricultural Sciences - Departament of Agronomy
The cut flower business requires exact synchronicity between product offer and demand in consumer countries. Having tools that help to improve this synchronicity through predictions or crop growth monitoring could provide an important advantage to program standards and corrective agronomic practices. At the Centro de Biotecnología Agropecuaria, SENA (SENA's Biotechnology, Agricultural and Livestock Center), located in Mosquera, Cundinamarca, a trial with standard carnation cv. Delphi grown under greenhouse conditions was carried out. The objective of this study was to build a simple model of dry matter (DM) production and partition of on-carnation flower stems. The model was based on the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) MJ m-2 d-1 and temperature as exogenous variables and assumed no water or nutrient limitations or damage caused by pests, disease or weeds. In this model, the daily DM increase depended on the PAR, the light fraction intercepted by the foliage (FLINT) and the light use efficiency (LUE) g MJ-1. The LUE in the vegetative and reproductive stages reached values of 1.31 and 0.74 g MJ-1, respectively. The estimated extinction coefficient (k) value corresponded to 0.53 and the maximum FLINT was between 0.79 and 0.82. Partitioning between the plant vegetative and reproductive stages was modeled based on the hypothesis that the partition is regulated by the source sink relationship. The estimated partition coefficient for the vegetative stage of the leaves was 0.63 and 0.37 for the stems. During the reproductive stage, the partitioning coefficients of leaves, stems and flower buds were 0.05, 0.74, and 0.21, respectively.
El negocio de las flores de corte requiere una estricta sincronía entre la oferta del producto y la demanda en los sitios de consumo. Contar con herramientas que ayuden a mejorar esta sincronía mediante predicciones o monitoreo del cultivo puede significar una ventaja importante a la hora programar prácticas de manejo rutinarias o correctivas. En el Centro de Biotecnología Agropecuaria del SENA, ubicado en Mosquera, Cundinamarca, se estableció un ensayo en clavel estándar cv. Delphi en condiciones de invernadero. El objetivo del estudio fue construir un modelo simple de producción y distribución de masa seca en tallos florales de clavel. El modelo se basó en la radiación fotosintéticamente activa (PAR) MJ m-2 d-1 y la temperatura como variables exógenas y asume que no hay limitantes de agua, nutrientes o daño por plagas, enfermedades o malezas. En este modelo el incremento diario de masa seca dependió de la PAR, la fracción de luz interceptada por el follaje (FLINT) y la eficiencia en el uso de la luz (LUE) g MJ-1. El LUE para la etapa vegetativa y reproductiva alcanzó valores de 1.31 y 0.74 g MJ-1, respectivamente. El valor estimado de k correspondió a 0,53 y la máxima FLINT estuvo entre 0,79 y 0,82. La distribución entre las etapas vegetativa y reproductiva de la planta se modeló basada en la hipótesis de que la partición está regulada por la relación fuente vertedero. El coeficiente de distribución estimado para la etapa vegetativa para las hojas fue 0,63 y para el tallo 0,37. Los coeficientes de distribución en la etapa reproductiva fueron para hojas 0,05; tallos 0,74 y botón floral 0,21.

References

Asocolflores, Asociación Colombiana de Productores de Flores. 2009. Colombian Floriculture: 2009 statistics. Bogota.

Berntsen, J., H. Hauggard-Nielsenb, J.E. Olesena, B.M. Petersena, E.S. Jensenb, and A. Thomsena. 2004. Modelling dry matter production and resource use in intercrops of pea and barley. Field Crops Res. 88, 69-83.

Cárdenas, C.A., I.F. Rivera, V.J. Flórez, W. Piedrahíta, and B. Chaves. 2006. Análisis de crecimiento en clavel estándar variedad 'Nelson' cultivado en sustratos. pp. 111-127. In: Flórez, V., A. De la C. Fernández, D. Miranda, B. Chaves, and J.M. Guzmán (eds.). Avances sobre fertirriego en la floricultura colombiana. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota.

Carranza, C., O. Lanchero, D. Miranda, M.R. Salazar, and B. Chaves. 2008. Modelo simple de simulación de distribución de masa seca en brócoli (Brassica sp.) variedad Coronado y repollo (Brassica oleracea) híbrido Delus cultivado en la Sabana de Bogotá. Agron. Colomb. 26, 23-31.

Dennett, M.D and K.H.M. Ishag. 1998. Use of the expolinear growth model to analyse the growth of faba bean, peas and lentils at three densities: fitting the model. Ann. Bot. 82, 497-505.

Gary, C., J.W. Jones and M. Tchamitchian. 1998. Crop modelling in horticulture: state of the art. Sci. Hortic. 74, 3-20.

Gosse, G., C. Varlet-Grancher, R. Bonhomme, M. Chartier, J. Allirand, and G. Lemaire. 1986. Production maximale de matiere seche et rayonnement solaire intercepte par un couvert vegetal. Agronomie 6, 47-56.

Goudriaan, J and H.H. Van Laar. 1994. Current issues in production ecology. Modelling potential growth processes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.

Haxeltine, A. and I.C. Prentice. 1996. A general model for the lightuse efficiency of primary production. Funct. Ecol. 10, 551-561.

Jame, Y.W. and H.W. Cutforth. 1996. Crop growth models for decision support systems. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76, 9-19.

Jones, J.W. and J.T. Ritchie. 1990. Crop growth models. pp. 63-69. In: Hofman, G.J., T.A. Howell, and K.H. Solomon (eds.). Management of farm irrigation systems. ASA E, St. Joseph, MI.

Kage, H. and H. Stützel. 1999. A simple empirical model for predicting development and dry matter partitioning in cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. botrytis). Sci. Hortic. 80, 19-38.

Keating, B.A., M.J. Robertson, R.C. Muchow, and N.I. Huth. 1999. Modelling sugarcane production systems I. Development and performance of the sugarcane module. Field Crops Res. 61, 253-271.

Kooman, P.L. and J.W. Jones. 1995. Report on theoretical studies with potencial yield and shooting models for banana. Florida University, Gainesville, FL.

Kooman, P.L. and C.J.T. Spitters. 1995. Coherent set of models to simulate potato growth. pp. 253-274. In: Kaba, P., B. Marshall, B.J. Van den Broek, J. Vos, and H. Van Keulen (eds.). Modelling and parameterization of the soil-plant-atmosphere system. A comparison of potato growth models. Wageningen Press, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Lee, J.H., E. Heuvelink, and H. Challa. 2002. Effects of planting date and plant density on crop growth in cut chrysanthemum. J. Hort. Sci. Biotechnol. 77, 238-247.

Lee, J.H., J. Goudriaan, and H. Challa. 2003. Using the expolinear growth equation for modelling crop growth in year-round cut chrysanthemum. Ann. Bot. 92, 697-708.

Lentz, W. 1998. Model applications in horticulture: a review. Sci. Hortic. 74, 151-174.

López, M.A., B. Chaves, V.J. Flórez, and M.R. Salazar. 2010. Modelo de aparición de nudos en clavel (Dianthus caryophyllus L.) cv. Delphi cultivado en sustratos. Agron. Colomb. 28, 47-54.

Marcelis, L.F.M. 1994. A simulation model for dry matter partitioning in cucumber. Ann. Bot. 74, 43-52.

Marcelis, L.F.M. and H. Gijzen. 1998. Evaluation under commercial conditions of a model of prediction of the yield and quality of cucumber fruits. Sci. Hortic. 76, 171-181.

Meira, S. and E. Guevara. 2000. Uso de modelos de simulación de cultivos como herramienta para la toma de decisiones en el cultivo de soja. INTA , Pergamino, Argentina.

Monteith, J.L. 1969. The quest for balance in crop modelling. Agron. J. 88, 695-697.

Muchow, R.C. and R. Davies. 1988. Effect of nitrogen supply on the comparative productivity of maize and sorghum in a semi-arid tropical environment. Radiation interception and biomass accumulation. Field Crops Res. 18, 17-30.

O'Connell, M.G., G.J. O'Leary, D.M. Whitfield, and D.J. Connor. 2004. Interception of photosynthetically active radiation and radiation-use efficiency of wheat, field pea and mustard in a semi-arid environment. Field Crops Res. 85, 111-124.

Partridge, P.L., M.S. Reid, and H.C. Kohl. 1983. A productivity and partitioning approach to carnation production. Acta Hort. 141, 173-180.

Penning de Vries, F.W.T., D.M. Jansen, H.F.M. ten Berger, and A. Bakema. 1989. Simulation of ecophysiological processes of growth in several annual crops. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation-Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Ruiz, R.A. and H.D. Bertero. 2008. Light interception and radiation use efficiency in temperate quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) cultivars. Eur. J. Agron. 29, 144-152.

Salazar, M.R. 2006. Un modelo simple de producción potencial de uchuva. Ph.D. thesis. Faculty of Agronomy, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota.

Salazar, M.R., J.W. Jones, B. Chaves, and A. Cooman. 2007. A model for the potential production and dry matter distribution of cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) Sci. Hortic. 115, 142-148.

SAS Institute. 2003. The NLIN procedure. SAS /STAT User's quick start guide, Version 9.1. and Online Support. Cary, NC.

Tsubo, M., S. Walker, and H.O. Ogindo. 2005. A simulation model of cereal-legume intercropping systems for semi-arid regions. I. Model development. Field Crops Res. 93, 10-22.

Van Kraalingen, D.W.G. 1991. The FSE system for crop simulation. Centre for Agrobiological Research-CABO; Department of Theoretical Production Ecology-TPE, Wageningen Agricultural University. Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Dimensions

PlumX

Article abstract page views

717

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

How to Cite

Lopez M., M. Ángel, Chaves C., B., & Flórez R., V. J. (2014). Potential growing model for the standard carnation cv. Delphi. Agronomía Colombiana, 32(2), 196-204. https://doi.org/10.15446/agron.colomb.v32n2.43737