This HTML5 document contains 60 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n9http://localhost/temp/predkladatel/
n18http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/riv/tvurce/
n15http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/projekt/
n8http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/subjekt/
n7http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/
n12http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/zamer/
shttp://schema.org/
skoshttp://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#
n4http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/
n2http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/vysledek/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n11http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/klicoveSlovo/
n6http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/duvernostUdaju/
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n13http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/vysledek/RIV%2F62156489%3A43210%2F11%3A00179013%21RIV12-MZE-43210___/
n20http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/aktivita/
n17http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/jazykVysledku/
n19http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/druhVysledku/
n5http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/obor/
n16http://reference.data.gov.uk/id/gregorian-year/

Statements

Subject Item
n2:RIV%2F62156489%3A43210%2F11%3A00179013%21RIV12-MZE-43210___
rdf:type
skos:Concept n7:Vysledek
dcterms:description
We compared the performance of eight widely used, easily accessible and well-documented crop growth simulation models (APES, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT, FASSET, HERMES, STICS and WOFOST) for winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) during 49 growing seasons at eight sites in northwestern, Central and southeastern Europe. The aim was to examine how different process-based crop models perform at the field scale when provided with a limited set of information for model calibration and simulation, reflecting the typical use of models for large-scale applications, and to present the uncertainties related to this type of model application. Data used in the simulations consisted of daily weather statistics, information on soil properties, information on crop phenology for each cultivar, and basic crop and soil management information. Our results showed that none of the models perfectly reproduced recorded observations at all sites and in all years, and none could unequivocally be labelled robust and accurate in terms of yield prediction across different environments and crop cultivars with only minimum calibration. The best performance regarding yield estimation was for DAISY and DSSAT, for which the RMSE values were lowest (1428 and 1603 kg ha-1) and the index of agreement (0.71 and 0.74) highest. CROPSYST systematically underestimated yields (MBE -- 1186 kg ha-1), whereas HERMES, STICS and WOFOST clearly overestimated them (MBE 1174, 1272 and 1213 kg ha-1, respectively). APES, DAISY, HERMES, STICS and WOFOST furnished high total above-ground biomass estimates, whereas CROPSYST, DSSAT and FASSET provided low total above-ground estimates. Consequently, DSSAT and FASSET produced very high harvest index values, followed by HERMES and WOFOST. APES and DAISY, on the other hand, returned low harvest index values. In spite of phenological observations being provided, the calibration results for wheat phenology, i.e. estimated dates of anthesis and maturity, were surprisingly variable, We compared the performance of eight widely used, easily accessible and well-documented crop growth simulation models (APES, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT, FASSET, HERMES, STICS and WOFOST) for winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) during 49 growing seasons at eight sites in northwestern, Central and southeastern Europe. The aim was to examine how different process-based crop models perform at the field scale when provided with a limited set of information for model calibration and simulation, reflecting the typical use of models for large-scale applications, and to present the uncertainties related to this type of model application. Data used in the simulations consisted of daily weather statistics, information on soil properties, information on crop phenology for each cultivar, and basic crop and soil management information. Our results showed that none of the models perfectly reproduced recorded observations at all sites and in all years, and none could unequivocally be labelled robust and accurate in terms of yield prediction across different environments and crop cultivars with only minimum calibration. The best performance regarding yield estimation was for DAISY and DSSAT, for which the RMSE values were lowest (1428 and 1603 kg ha-1) and the index of agreement (0.71 and 0.74) highest. CROPSYST systematically underestimated yields (MBE -- 1186 kg ha-1), whereas HERMES, STICS and WOFOST clearly overestimated them (MBE 1174, 1272 and 1213 kg ha-1, respectively). APES, DAISY, HERMES, STICS and WOFOST furnished high total above-ground biomass estimates, whereas CROPSYST, DSSAT and FASSET provided low total above-ground estimates. Consequently, DSSAT and FASSET produced very high harvest index values, followed by HERMES and WOFOST. APES and DAISY, on the other hand, returned low harvest index values. In spite of phenological observations being provided, the calibration results for wheat phenology, i.e. estimated dates of anthesis and maturity, were surprisingly variable,
dcterms:title
Simulation of winter wheat yield and its variability in different climates of Europe: A comparison of eight crop growth models Simulation of winter wheat yield and its variability in different climates of Europe: A comparison of eight crop growth models
skos:prefLabel
Simulation of winter wheat yield and its variability in different climates of Europe: A comparison of eight crop growth models Simulation of winter wheat yield and its variability in different climates of Europe: A comparison of eight crop growth models
skos:notation
RIV/62156489:43210/11:00179013!RIV12-MZE-43210___
n7:predkladatel
n8:orjk%3A43210
n4:aktivita
n20:P n20:Z
n4:aktivity
P(GP521/09/P479), P(QI91C054), Z(MSM6215648905)
n4:cisloPeriodika
3
n4:dodaniDat
n16:2012
n4:domaciTvurceVysledku
n18:9619674 n18:5539498
n4:druhVysledku
n19:J
n4:duvernostUdaju
n6:S
n4:entitaPredkladatele
n13:predkladatel
n4:idSjednocenehoVysledku
229488
n4:idVysledku
RIV/62156489:43210/11:00179013
n4:jazykVysledku
n17:eng
n4:klicovaSlova
variabilita klimatu; porovnání růstových modelů; růstové modely
n4:klicoveSlovo
n11:variabilita%20klimatu n11:porovn%C3%A1n%C3%AD%20r%C5%AFstov%C3%BDch%20model%C5%AF n11:r%C5%AFstov%C3%A9%20modely
n4:kodStatuVydavatele
NL - Nizozemsko
n4:kontrolniKodProRIV
[9D7F0FAAEBC5]
n4:nazevZdroje
European Journal of Agronomy
n4:obor
n5:GC
n4:pocetDomacichTvurcuVysledku
2
n4:pocetTvurcuVysledku
19
n4:projekt
n15:QI91C054 n15:GP521%2F09%2FP479
n4:rokUplatneniVysledku
n16:2011
n4:svazekPeriodika
35
n4:tvurceVysledku
Patil, Ravi H Hlavinka, Petr Angulo, Carlos Ferrise, Roberto Mirschel, Wilfried Takáč, Jozef Palosuo, Taru Šiška, Bernard Trnka, Miroslav Ruget, Francoise Caldag, Bans Ewert, Frank Rumbaur, Christian Kersebaum, Kurt Christian Bindi, Marco Olesen, Jorgen E Saylan, Levent Moriondo, Marco Rötter, Reimund
n4:zamer
n12:MSM6215648905
s:issn
1161-0301
s:numberOfPages
12
n9:organizacniJednotka
43210