I noticed that there is no wikipedia page about Functional structural plant models. I think that we should create one since wikipedia is often the first step for many new students to get to know a topic or a discipline.
With the help of chat-gpt I made a draft (see document), and I would really appreciate the input from everyone, especially the more experienced people. Would you like to help? Here the link:
Feel free to give inputs not just about the content, but also about the structure
Hi Michele, great to see this! I have a few ideas, but not sure where best to enter them. So I’m starting here!
I’m thinking it’s important to note that Lindenmayer’s original work included the context-sensitivity that is central to modelling carbon allocation and all kinds of signalling, particularly hormonal, in branching structures. This is what allows representation of the functional aspects so easily. Probably should also be mentioned under Principles and components.
In line with this, a key application of FSPMs is surely in plant science, where modelling has been used to help understand hormonal aspects of plant development, from flowering in mycelis to control of branching and coloration patterns, etc, etc. There is a great recent Foundations paper in AoB about Lindenmayer’s work by Prusinkiewicz, which would be a great reference I think.
A good reference for modularity might be Room, PM, Maillette, L, and Hanan, JS (1994). Module and Metamer Dynamics and Virtual Plants. Advances in Ecological Research, Vol [25 25 105-157]
Should the L-systems reference under Computational Approaches include something about “implementation within a variety of computer languages (C, C++, python…) allowing models to be programmed and possibly compiled.”
Fantastic idea! Thanks for taking the initiative and putting in the effort!
My two cents:
“FSP models can be identified as agent-based models, if the agents represent individual plant organs or plant building blocks.” I haven’t read the reference, but I’m not sure the introduction is the best place for this statement. It feels a bit strong and might cause confusion rather than help clarify what FSPMs are. Personally, I see agent-based modeling as one possible way to describe FSPMs, but it’s not a universal perspective. For instance, agents typically have a degree of autonomy, which isn’t always the case for all organs in FSPMs, especially when considering the multiscale approach where processes and organs are tightly coordinated. Also, if we’re comparing modeling paradigms, there are other valuable analogies too (e.g., with fluid dynamics for simulating water flow). So I’d suggest removing this sentence from the introduction.
“A defining feature of FSP models is their ability to simulate environmental interactions.” I’d be cautious with this claim, as many crop models also simulate environmental interactions. What I think really defines FSPMs is their explicit 3D representation of plant architecture. This makes it possible to represent topological relationships (e.g., localized effects of trophic state) and better account for spatial heterogeneity in resource distribution (light, water, nitrogen, etc.).
“Finite element methods for mechanical or transport simulations, Differential equations” I believe “differential” should be lowercase here.
“such asOpenSimRoot” → missing a space, should be “such as OpenSimRoot”.
“plant science, computer modeling, and mathematics” I’d suggest “computer science” instead of “computer modeling.” It’s broader and reflects the significant time and effort devoted to aspects like model coupling, performance optimization, and usability.
Thanks again for the effort, it’s great for the community!
