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/
n12http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/riv/tvurce/
n8http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/projekt/
n14http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/subjekt/
n13http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/
n20http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/zamer/
shttp://schema.org/
skoshttp://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#
n3http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/
n16http://bibframe.org/vocab/
n2http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/vysledek/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n5http://linked.opendata.cz/resource/domain/vavai/vysledek/RIV%2F67179843%3A_____%2F12%3A00384072%21RIV13-AV0-67179843/
n18http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/klicoveSlovo/
n7http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/duvernostUdaju/
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n17http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/jazykVysledku/
n6http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/aktivita/
n19http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/obor/
n9http://linked.opendata.cz/ontology/domain/vavai/riv/druhVysledku/
n4http://reference.data.gov.uk/id/gregorian-year/

Statements

Subject Item
n2:RIV%2F67179843%3A_____%2F12%3A00384072%21RIV13-AV0-67179843
rdf:type
n13:Vysledek skos:Concept
dcterms:description
In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction. In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction.
dcterms:title
Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe. A comparison of nine crop models Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe. A comparison of nine crop models
skos:prefLabel
Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe. A comparison of nine crop models Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe. A comparison of nine crop models
skos:notation
RIV/67179843:_____/12:00384072!RIV13-AV0-67179843
n13:predkladatel
n14:ico%3A67179843
n3:aktivita
n6:Z n6:P
n3:aktivity
P(7E10033), P(ED1.1.00/02.0073), P(QI91C054), Z(AV0Z60870520)
n3:cisloPeriodika
July 2012
n3:dodaniDat
n4:2013
n3:domaciTvurceVysledku
n12:5539498
n3:druhVysledku
n9:J
n3:duvernostUdaju
n7:S
n3:entitaPredkladatele
n5:predkladatel
n3:idSjednocenehoVysledku
168033
n3:idVysledku
RIV/67179843:_____/12:00384072
n3:jazykVysledku
n17:eng
n3:klicovaSlova
Climate; Crop growth simulation; Model comparison; Spring barley; Yield variability; Uncertainty
n3:klicoveSlovo
n18:Uncertainty n18:Model%20comparison n18:Spring%20barley n18:Climate n18:Yield%20variability n18:Crop%20growth%20simulation
n3:kodStatuVydavatele
NL - Nizozemsko
n3:kontrolniKodProRIV
[265C57B07CBB]
n3:nazevZdroje
Field Crops Research
n3:obor
n19:EH
n3:pocetDomacichTvurcuVysledku
1
n3:pocetTvurcuVysledku
15
n3:projekt
n8:QI91C054 n8:ED1.1.00%2F02.0073 n8:7E10033
n3:rokUplatneniVysledku
n4:2012
n3:svazekPeriodika
133
n3:tvurceVysledku
Trnka, Miroslav Ruget, F. Kersebaum, K. C. Nendel, C. Moriondo, M. Ewert, F. Olesen, J. E. Rötter, R. P. Palosuo, T. Hlavinka, P. Takáč, J. Patil, R. H. Ferrise, R. Bindi, M. Angulo, C.
n3:wos
000305497300003
n3:zamer
n20:AV0Z60870520
s:issn
0378-4290
s:numberOfPages
14
n16:doi
10.1016/j.fcr.2012.03.016