Evaluation of two maize models for nine US locations

被引:107
作者
Kiniry, JR
Williams, JR
Vanderlip, RL
Atwood, JD
Reicosky, DC
Mulliken, J
Cox, WJ
Mascagni, HJ
Hollinger, SE
Wiebold, WJ
机构
[1] KANSAS STATE UNIV,DEPT AGRON,MANHATTAN,KS 66506
[2] USDA ARS,MORRIS,MN 56267
[3] JM CROP CONSULTING,NICKERSON,NE 68044
[4] CORNELL UNIV,DEPT SOIL CROP & ATMOSPHER SCI,ITHACA,NY 14853
[5] LOUISIANA STATE UNIV,NW RES STN,ST JOSEPH,LA 71366
[6] ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY,CHAMPAIGN,IL 61820
[7] UNIV MISSOURI,COLUMBIA,MO 65211
关键词
D O I
10.2134/agronj1997.00021962008900030009x
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Crop models can be evaluated based on accuracy in simulating several Sears' yields for one location or on accuracy in simulating long-term mean yields for several locations. Our objective was to see how the ALMANAC (Agricultural Land Management Alternatives with Numerical Assessment Criteria) model and a new version of CERES-Maize (Crop Environment Resource Synthesis) simulate grain yield of rainfed maize (Zea mays L.). We tested the models at one county in each of nine states: Minnesota, New York, Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Louisiana, and Texas (MN, NY, IA, IL, NE, MO, KS, LA, and TX). Simulated gain yields were compared with grain yields reported by the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) for 1983 to 1992. In each county we those a soil commonly used in maize production, and we used measured weather data. Mean simulated grain yield for each county was always within 5% of the mean measured gain yield for the location. Within locations, measured grain yield was regressed on simulated grain yields and tested to see if the slope was significantly different from 1.0 and if the y-intercept was significantly different from 0.0, both at the 95% confidence level. Only at MN, NY, and NE for ALMANAC and at MN, NY, and TX for CERES was slope significantly different from 1.0 or intercept significantly different from 0.0. The CVs of simulated grain yields were similar to the those of measured yields at most sites. Also, both models were appropriate for predicting an individual year's yield for most counties. Values for plant parameters, such as heat units for development and the harvest index, and values for soil parameters describing soil water-holding rapacity offer users reasonable inputs for simulating maize grain yield over a wide range of locations.
引用
收藏
页码:421 / 426
页数:6
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]   INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF NITROGEN AND WATER STRESSES ON BIOMASS ACCUMULATION, NITROGEN UPTAKE, AND SEED YIELD OF MAIZE [J].
BENNETT, JM ;
MUTTI, LSM ;
RAO, PSC ;
JONES, JW .
FIELD CROPS RESEARCH, 1989, 19 (04) :297-311
[2]   INFLUENCE OF ROW WIDTH AND PLANT POPULATION ON YIELD OF 2 VARIETIES OF CORN (ZEA-MAYS L) [J].
BROWN, RH ;
BEATY, ER ;
ETHREDGE, WJ ;
HAYES, DD .
AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 1970, 62 (06) :767-&
[3]  
COSTA JO, 1988, PESQUI AGROPECU BRAS, V23, P1255
[4]  
Cox W J, 1993, AGRONOMY ABSTRACTS, P132
[5]   EFFECTS OF PLANT-DENSITY ON THE YIELD, MATURITY AND GRAIN CONTENT OF WHOLE-PLANT MAIZE [J].
DAYNARD, TB ;
MULDOON, JF .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE, 1981, 61 (04) :843-849
[6]   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FINAL YIELD AND PHOTOSYNTHESIS AT FLOWERING IN INDIVIDUAL MAIZE PLANTS [J].
EDMEADES, GO ;
DAYNARD, TB .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE, 1979, 59 (03) :585-601
[7]   EFFECTS OF ROW SPACING ON EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND YIELDS OF CORN IN A SEMIARID ENVIRONMENT [J].
FAIRBOURN, ML ;
KEMPER, WD ;
GARDNER, HR .
AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 1970, 62 (06) :795-+
[8]  
FRANCIS CA, 1978, FIELD CROP RES, V1, P51, DOI 10.1016/0378-4290(78)90006-0
[9]   WATER DEFICIT TIMING EFFECTS ON YIELD COMPONENTS IN MAIZE [J].
GRANT, RF ;
JACKSON, BS ;
KINIRY, JR ;
ARKIN, GF .
AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 1989, 81 (01) :61-65
[10]  
Griffin J.L., 1980, THESIS U MISSOURI CO