LEAF-E: a tool to analyze grass leaf growth using function fitting

Table 2 Comparison of leaf elongation in two Miscanthus genotypes from different species

Growth parameter			*M. Sinensis*‘Goliath’ (mean ± SE)	M. x *giganteus*(mean ± SE)	Difference in mean⁽⁺⁾
	Lm	(mm)	1140 ± 46	923 ± 26	-217	**
	LERmax	(mm°C^-1d^-1)	4.2 ± 0.2	3.8 ± 0.2	-0.4	NS
Thermal time points	t100	(°Cd)	95 ± 4	167 ± 4	71	***
	t20%	(°Cd)	141 ± 7	207 ± 5	65	***
	t50%	(°Cd)	230 ± 8	294 ± 8	64	***
	tm	(°Cd)	240 ± 10	320 ± 8	80	***
	t90%	(°Cd)	350 ± 10	400 ± 13.8	50	NS
	te	(°Cd)	425 ± 10	461 ± 18	37	NS
Leaf elongation duration	LED(100-e)	(°Cd)	329 ± 8	295 ± 18	-35	NS
	LED(20%-90%)	(°Cd)	209 ± 5	194 ± 11	-15	NS
	LED(20%-e)	(°Cd)	283 ± 7	255 ± 16	-29	NS

The results are based on the analysis of nine M. sinensis ‘Goliath’ and eight M. x giganteus plants. Lm: final leaf length; LERmax: maximal leaf elongation rate; t20%, t50%, t90%, te: time points at which the leaf reaches 20%, 50%, 90% and 100% of the final leaf length, respectively; tm: time point at which the leaf reaches LERmax; LEDs: leaf elongation durations between above stated thermal time points.
+Statistical significance based on student t-test of M. sinensis ‘Goliath’ (n = 9) vs M. x giganteus (n = 8), **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, NS non-significant. Applied base temperature for thermal time calculation = 8°C, Mean of overall R² values = 0.9932 (0.9695-0.9989).

ISSN: 1746-4811