Comparison of two phenology models for predicting flowering and maturity date of soybean

被引:69
|
作者
Piper, EL
Boote, KJ
Jones, JW
Grimm, SS
机构
[1] UNIV FLORIDA, DEPT AGRON, GAINESVILLE, FL 32611 USA
[2] UNIV FLORIDA, DEPT AGR ENGN, GAINESVILLE, FL 32611 USA
[3] EMPRESA PESQUISA AGROPECUARIA & DIFUSAO TECNOL SA, SC, EPAGRI, BR-88001 FLORIANOPOLIS, SC, BRAZIL
关键词
D O I
10.2135/cropsci1996.0011183X003600060033x
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Unbiased prediction of plant growth stages is essential for accurate simulation of stage-specific responses to environmental factors. The phenology model in SOYGRO V5.42 was compared with the phenology model in CROPGRO V3.0 for prediction of flowering and maturity date. Data came from 17 sources in North America and covered a wide range of maturity groups. An additional large-scale data set from the U.S. Soybean Uniform Tests was used to evaluate predictions of maturity date. Parameters of the phenology models were estimated with an optimization procedure in which the downhill simplex method determined the direction of the search. While the optimization procedure was valuable to estimate the parameters, additional criteria were required to obtain realistic values. Based on the root mean square error (RMSE) criterion between predicted and observed dates, SOYGRO and CROPGRO predicted flowering equally well. Development rate after flowering was underpredicted by SOYGRO in cool environments so that in some years, maturity mas predicted very late. CROPGRO has a separate temperature function after beginning seedfill, which decreased the RMSE for prediction of maturity date compared with SOYGRO, especially for early maturity cultivars. Allowing the critical short day length to increase after flowering date in the CROPGRO model consistently decreased the RMSE for prediction of beginning seedfill and maturity. CROPGRO was superior to SOYGRO for prediction of maturity date.
引用
收藏
页码:1606 / 1614
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparison of Maturity Models
    Khoshgoftar, Mohammad
    Osman, Omar
    2009 2ND IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER SCIENCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, VOL 5, 2009, : 297 - 301
  • [22] EFFECT OF PLANT HEIGHT AND FLOWERING DATE ON SEED YIELD OF DETERMINATE SOYBEAN
    LIN, MS
    NELSON, RL
    CROP SCIENCE, 1988, 28 (02) : 218 - 222
  • [23] Mapping genetic loci for flowering time, maturity, and photoperiod insensitivity in soybean
    Tasma, IM
    Lorenzen, LL
    Green, DE
    Shoemaker, RC
    MOLECULAR BREEDING, 2001, 8 (01) : 25 - 35
  • [24] Identification of Non-Pleiotropic Loci in Flowering and Maturity Control in Soybean
    Sedivy, Eric J.
    Akpertey, Abraham
    Vela, Angela
    Abadir, Sandra
    Khan, Awais
    Hanzawa, Yoshie
    AGRONOMY-BASEL, 2020, 10 (08):
  • [25] Mapping genetic loci for flowering time, maturity, and photoperiod insensitivity in soybean
    I.M. Tasma
    L.L. Lorenzen
    D.E. Green
    R.C. Shoemaker
    Molecular Breeding, 2001, 8 : 25 - 35
  • [26] COMPARISON OF CROP PHENOLOGY MODELS
    FRENCH, V
    HODGES, T
    AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 1985, 77 (01) : 170 - 171
  • [27] Modeling canopy senescence to calculate soybean maturity date using NDVI
    Lindsey, Alexander J.
    Craft, John C.
    Barker, David J.
    CROP SCIENCE, 2020, 60 (01) : 172 - 180
  • [28] Planting Date, Maturity, and Temperature Effects on Soybean Seed Yield and Composition
    Mourtzinis, Spyridon
    Gaspar, Adam P.
    Naeve, Seth L.
    Conley, Shawn P.
    AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 2017, 109 (05) : 2040 - 2049
  • [29] Evaluation of Simulated Fall Freeze, Planting Date, and Cultivar Maturity in Soybean
    Halvorson, M. A.
    Helms, T. C.
    Enz, J. W.
    Journal of Production Agriculture,
  • [30] Evaluation of simulated fall freeze, planting date, and cultivar maturity in soybean
    Halvorson, MA
    Helms, TC
    Enz, JW
    JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE, 1995, 8 (04): : 589 - 594