4.7 Article

On the number of experiments required to calibrate a cultivar in a crop model: The case of CROPGRO-soybean

期刊

FIELD CROPS RESEARCH
卷 204, 期 -, 页码 146-152

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.01.007

关键词

CROPGRO-soybean; Genetic coefficients; Uncertainty; Cross-validation; Optimization

类别

资金

  1. Higher Level Personnel Improvement Coordination (Capes-Brazil)
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [471860/2012-3]
  3. Robert B. Daugherty Water for Food Institute (WFI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The conventional approach for calibrating/validating a crop model considers few to many experiments. However, few experiments could lead to higher uncertainties and a large number of experiments is financial and time consuming. The objectives of this research were to study the calibration uncertainties and to find out the optimum (cost-benefit) number of experiment required for a reliable CROPGRO-Soybean model calibration/validation. This study used 21 field experiments (BMX Potencia RR variety) sown in eight different locations of Southern Brazil between 2010 and 2014. The experiments were grouped in 4 classes (Individual experiment, season/year per location, experimental sites and all data together). The developmental average Relative Root Mean Square Error (RRMSE) decreased from 22.2% to 7.8% in individual swings to all data together group, respectively. Use only one experiment (individual sowings) to calibrate a crop model, could lead to a RRMSE of 28.4, 48, and 36% for R1, LAI and yield, respectively. In general, as the number of experiment used during the calibration increases, smaller is the RRMSE's. The group that showed the best cost -benefit during the calibration/validation was the group 2 (season/year per location). The use of 3 experiments (early, optimum and late sowing dates), will ensure a reliable calibration/validation keeping the research resources use efficiency. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据