Predicting phenological development in winter wheat
- Additional Document Info
- View All
Accurate prediction of phenological development is important in the winter wheat Triticum aestivum agroecosystem. From a practical perspective, applications of pesticides and fertilizers are carried out at specific phenological stages. In crop-simulation modeling, the prediction of yield components (kernel number and kernel weight) and wheat-grain yield relies on accurate prediction of phenology. In this study, a nonlinear multiplicative model by Wang & Engel (WE) for predicting phenological development in differing winter wheat cultivars was evaluated using data from a 3 yr field experiment. In the vegetative phase (emergence to anthesis) the daily development rate (r) was simulated based on the product of a maximum development rate (Rmax) in the vegetative phase, a temperature response function [f(T)], a photoperiod response function [f(P)], and a vernalization response function [f(V)]. f(T) was a nonlinear function of the 3 cardinal temperatures for phenological development (minimum, Tmin, optimum, Topt and maximum, Tmax. f(P) was an exponential function of the actual and critical photoperiods and a sensitivity parameter unique to each cultivar. f(V) was calculated using f(T) based on the cardinal temperatures for vernalization (Tmin,vn, Topt,vn, and Tmax,vn). In the reproductive phase, r was simulated based on the product of Rmax for the reproductive phase and f(T). Predictions from this nonlinear model were compared to predictions from the phenology submodel of CERES-Wheat V3.0 (CW3). The nonlinear model performed very well for predicting phenological development in the 3 winter wheat cultivars, the mean root mean square error (RMSE) ranged from 2.9 to 4.1 d from booting to maturity. For the CW3 model, the mean RMSE ranged from 4.8 to 5.9 d for the same phenological stages. The WE model predicted double ridge with a mean RMSE of 7.3 d. Both models predicted terminal spikelet with a mean RMSE ranging from 6.2 to 7.1 d. The WE model was generally a better predictor of phenology between booting and maturity than the CW3 model. Inter-Research 2004.
author list (cited authors)
Xue, Q., Weiss, A., & Baenziger, P. S.
complete list of authors
Xue, Q||Weiss, A||Baenziger, PS