4.7 Article

OliveCan: A Process-Based Model of Development, Growth and Yield of Olive Orchards

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00632

关键词

carbon assimilation; crop model; Olea europaea L.; SPAC model; water stress; water uptake

资金

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [AGL-2010-20766, AGL2015-69822, FJCI-2015-24109]
  2. Junta de Andalucia [P08-AGR-04202]
  3. European Community's Seven Framework Programme-FP7 [KBBE.2013.1.4-09, 613817.2013-2016]
  4. ERA-NET FACCE SURPLUS [652615]
  5. INIA [PCIN-2015-259]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several simulation models of the olive crop have been formulated so far, but none of them is capable of analyzing the impact of environmental conditions and management practices on water relations, growth and productivity under both well-irrigated and water-limiting irrigation strategies. This paper presents and tests OliveCan, a process-oriented model conceived for those purposes. In short, OliveCan is composed of three main model components simulating the principal elements of the water and carbon balances of olive orchards and the impacts of some management operations. To assess its predictive power, OliveCan was tested against independent data collected in two 3-year field experiments conducted in Cordoba, Spain, each of them applying different irrigation treatments. An acceptable level of agreement was found between measured and simulated values of seasonal evapotranspiration (ET, range 393 to 1016 mm year(-1); RMSE of 89 mm year(-1)), daily transpiration (E-p, range 0.14-3.63 mm d(-1); RMSE of 0.32 mm d(-1)) and oil yield (Y-oil, range 13-357 g m(-2); RMSE of 63 g m(-2)). Finally, knowledge gaps identified during the formulation of the model and further testing needs are discussed, highlighting that there is additional room for improving its robustness. It is concluded that OliveCan has a strong potential as a simulation platform for a variety of research applications.

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