------------=_1302628005-12976-166
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.420 (Entity 5.420)
Content-Description: Edinburgh University charitable status
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
------------=_1302628005-12976-166--
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:30:38 -0300
Reply-To: Rubens <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Rubens <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: WeatherMan 4.5 - Repairing weather data
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Friends ...
I am trying to use "Repair Weather Data" function but I am not succeeding.
I am importing raw weather data .. TXT FILE . the original series present
25 high values out of "edit import limits".
WeatherMan is not correcting these values .
I believe that settings and options of "Generate weather data " function
are not right !!!
Please let me know directions to solve this problem or any pdf manual for
WeatherMan 4.0 - 4.5 ..
Thank You in anticipating for any help.
Sincerely
Rubens Coelho
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:24:08 -0700
Reply-To: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Just to Inform the Programmers of CERES
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear Friends,
I found a small problem in CERES MAIZE.
In CULTIVAR file:
--------------------------
@VAR# VRNAME.......... ECO# P1 P2 P5 G2 G3 PHINT
! 1 2 3 4 5 6
PC0001 2500-2600 GDD IB0001 160.0 0.750 780.0 750.0 8.50 49.00
--------------------------
... if we set G3 value to, for example, 8.51, the crop yield becomes
zero. But when we set it to 8.50 or 8.5, it becomes more than zero.
The problem is related to the last line of DSSAT40.INP file where
there is not enough room for all the digits.
Best
Behnam Ababaei
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:16:54 -0700
Reply-To: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Fertilizers
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear Users,
I am wondering how DSSAT can assess the effect f each type of
fertilizers? I mean, how it considers the effects of fertilizer
materials on a crop? What are the differences between, for example,
Urea and another fertilizer in DSSAT code? If someone used 300 kg/ha
Urea in a field, how the fertilizer table should be filled?
Best
Behnam Ababaei
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:44:46 -0700
Reply-To: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Does the irrigation regime affect the crop parameters while
calibration?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear users,
I am using PEST to calibrate cultivar parameters of MAIZE.
1) Do I have to change any Ecotype parameters in this process? By
default, there are only 2 Ecotypes in DSSAT database.
2) Is it true if I find cultivar parameters different for different
irrigation treatments? When I used all irrigation treatments, the
calibration results got worst in comparison to the time I used only 1
or 2 irrigation treatments.
Best
Behnam
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:48:56 -0700
Reply-To: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fertilizers
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
What should I do with the fertilizers which are not included in DSSAT?
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:00:30 -0400
Reply-To: Lyndon Estes <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Lyndon Estes <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Unrealistic maize yields
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear DSSAT users,
I am busy with a country-scale (South Africa) maize study, and I am getting
some unrealistically optimistic yield estimates in arid areas of the country
where dryland maize is not viable. For example, here are a few summary
statistics (averaged over 19 years of runs, with reinitialization each year)
for one location where mean annual rainfall is 276 mm.
YEARS PRCM yield cv.yield N failures days to maturity
1980-1999 159 1127 89 3 101
This was done with a 20% starting soil moisture content measured each July
15th (soil NO3 = 0.9; NH4 = 0.1), with auto-planting occurring anytime
between the end of October and mid-January provided soil moisture in the top
25 cm exceeds 70%. I am working with fairly minimal inputs, particularly
for soil, since I couldn't get or extrapolate information on KSat, Ph, CEC,
etc.
Here's the soil:
*LTAf000404 ARC LT -99 120 Landtype LTAf000404
@SITE COUNTRY LAT LONG SCS FAMILY
-99 S.Africa -99 -99 Landtype group Af
@ SCOM SALB SLU1 SLDR SLRO SLNF SLPF SMHB SMPX SMKE
-99 0.13 6.0 0.80 61.5 1.00 1.00 -99 -99 -99
@ SLB SLMH SLLL SDUL SSAT SRGF SSKS SBDM SLOC SLCL SLSI SLCF
SLNI SLHW SLHB SCEC SADC
13 A1 0.064 0.158 0.308 1.000 -99 1.83 0.09 2.0 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
26 A2 0.064 0.158 0.308 1.000 -99 1.83 0.09 2.0 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
40 A3 0.064 0.158 0.308 0.517 -99 1.83 0.08 2.0 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
67 B1 0.062 0.169 0.335 0.343 -99 1.76 0.06 3.3 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
94 B2 0.062 0.169 0.335 0.200 -99 1.76 0.02 3.3 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
120 B3 0.062 0.169 0.335 0.118 -99 1.76 0.00 3.3 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
And cultivar coefficients
KR0169 KROONSTAD(MICH) . IB0001 200.0 0.750 850.0 800.0 10.00 45.00
I throw down 32 kg/ha of ammonium nitrate at planting, and have a planting
density of 2.0 and row-spacing
of 200 cm.
I have done some sensitivity analyses on certain variables:
X file
SH20 (doubles yield if increased to 50% soil moisture),
MESEV (changed to R--increases yield by 300 kg/ha)
EVAPO (changed to F--increased yield by 300 kg/ha)
Soil SLNF, SLPF, SALB, SLU1, SLDR (negligible effects)
Although I wasn't worried as much about them, I also changed SDUL, SLLL, and
SAT values by 10% in the
direction that would produce less PAW. These had small effects (~ 100 kg/ha
or less--oddly, lowering SDUL
and SSAT produces small increases in yields). SLOC is already low, so I
wouldn't expect this to
be the culprit behind these unrealistic results.
I also tested different cultivar coefficients. These, together with
cultivars, together with SH20, had the
largest effects on yields, but none of these increased the number of years
in which crops failed, which is
the value I was expecting to move. These remain constant at 3 no matter how
I tweak the model.
There are of course other parameters to test in DSSAT, but these to me
seemed the most obvious places to look.
Since all these tweaks still end up with production in 16 out of 19 years in
a place that probably
shouldn't grow any maize, I was hoping for some pointers on where else I
might look to bring the simulations
closer to reality. My only other thought is that the model is overestimating
soil moisture retention in the deep sandy soil, but I am not sure how I
would fix this outside of making the soil shallower. Perhaps I am missing
something rather obvious in my settings?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Cheers, Lyndon
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:11:11 -0400
Reply-To: "Boote,Kenneth J" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Boote,Kenneth J" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Does the irrigation regime affect the crop parameters while
calibration?
Comments: To: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Behnam:
What is PEST? I don't know what that is?
You should not change any Ecotype parameters. It would be dangerous to calibrate RUE (which is in the Ecotype file), as that is viewed as a constant across all maize hybrids. The only exception is for a low RUE for pure inbred lines used in plant breeder plots (and that is not something you are looking at). If you see a value for RUE of 4.5 in ecotype file, that is not a good number and will disappear by the time of release of V4.5 DSSAT.
The principle is that you should calibrate genetic coefficients only for the optimum irrigation (and N fertilization) treatments. That way, any failure to predict accurately the growth and yield at low irrigation or low N fertilization indicates a problem with the prediction (and inputs) related to water and N balance. So, yes, the genetic coefficients will change if you optimize them with all the treatments being considered (as you already say you observed).
Good luck.
Ken Boote
________________________________________
From: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Behnam [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 3:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Does the irrigation regime affect the crop parameters while calibration?
Dear users,
I am using PEST to calibrate cultivar parameters of MAIZE.
1) Do I have to change any Ecotype parameters in this process? By
default, there are only 2 Ecotypes in DSSAT database.
2) Is it true if I find cultivar parameters different for different
irrigation treatments? When I used all irrigation treatments, the
calibration results got worst in comparison to the time I used only 1
or 2 irrigation treatments.
Best
Behnam
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:39:32 +0100
Reply-To: Jonathan Massheder <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Jonathan Massheder <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Does the irrigation regime affect the crop parameters while
calibration?
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ken,
PEST is very powerful parameter estimation software,
http://www.pesthomepage.org/
Regards,
Jonathan
On 25/04/2011 03:11, Boote,Kenneth J wrote:
> Behnam:
>
> What is PEST? I don't know what that is?
>
> You should not change any Ecotype parameters. It would be dangerous to calibrate RUE (which is in the Ecotype file), as that is viewed as a constant across all maize hybrids. The only exception is for a low RUE for pure inbred lines used in plant breeder plots (and that is not something you are looking at). If you see a value for RUE of 4.5 in ecotype file, that is not a good number and will disappear by the time of release of V4.5 DSSAT.
>
> The principle is that you should calibrate genetic coefficients only for the optimum irrigation (and N fertilization) treatments. That way, any failure to predict accurately the growth and yield at low irrigation or low N fertilization indicates a problem with the prediction (and inputs) related to water and N balance. So, yes, the genetic coefficients will change if you optimize them with all the treatments being considered (as you already say you observed).
>
> Good luck.
> Ken Boote
>
> ________________________________________
> From: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Behnam [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 3:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Does the irrigation regime affect the crop parameters while calibration?
>
> Dear users,
> I am using PEST to calibrate cultivar parameters of MAIZE.
>
> 1) Do I have to change any Ecotype parameters in this process? By
> default, there are only 2 Ecotypes in DSSAT database.
>
> 2) Is it true if I find cultivar parameters different for different
> irrigation treatments? When I used all irrigation treatments, the
> calibration results got worst in comparison to the time I used only 1
> or 2 irrigation treatments.
>
> Best
> Behnam
--
Jonathan Massheder
Simulistics Ltd
www.simulistics.com
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:52:10 -0500
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Stuart Rymph <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Does the irrigation regime affect the crop parameters while
calibration?
Comments: To: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Behnam,
PEST is to simulate damage or harvest events. If your datasets include
significant damage, you should NOT be using them to build genetic
coefficients - see Dr. Boote's comments. Think about it - if you have
pest damage or nutrient limitations in your real data, how do you know
which effects are genetic and which are environmental?
Also, get your management files working correctly before you try any
testing - if you have irrigation or fertilizer info entered incorrectly,
you are wasting your time running multiple-year scenarios with bad
info. As far as soil conditions go, if you can get an extra year of
weather data, you can "set up" your initial soil conditions by running a
year of simulations prior to your experiments. Just match the
simulations as closely as you can to what really happened.
Look through the manuals, they are on the CD an I believe that there is
a link to them in the help section too - Glance through the table of
contents of all of the manuals then go back and read the ones that
pertain to what you wan to do. A lot of your questions should be
answered there - it will save you a lot of time.
Best of Luck,
Stu
On 4/24/2011 2:44 AM, Behnam wrote:
> Dear users,
> I am using PEST to calibrate cultivar parameters of MAIZE.
>
> 1) Do I have to change any Ecotype parameters in this process? By
> default, there are only 2 Ecotypes in DSSAT database.
>
> 2) Is it true if I find cultivar parameters different for different
> irrigation treatments? When I used all irrigation treatments, the
> calibration results got worst in comparison to the time I used only 1
> or 2 irrigation treatments.
>
> Best
> Behnam
>
>
--
Stuart Rymph, Ph.D., CCA, PAS
Dairy Nutrition and Technical Services Manager
Land O'Lakes Purina Feed LLC
6063 Beckman Rd.
Mazomanie, WI 53560
(608) 469-8538
[log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:11:38 +0200
Reply-To: Abraham Singels <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Abraham Singels <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Unrealistic maize yields
Comments: To: Lyndon Estes <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi Lyndon
The late Andre du Toit made several changes to the Ceres Maize model to get it to simulate maize growth and yield in South Africa better. Some of these were published in the S.A. Journal of Plant and Soil. They may have info that could help you.
To me the answer (at least an important part of it) lies in the weather data. I could comment if you send me the daily data, especially rainfall and reference evaporation. What are the lat and long of the site?
Abraham Singels
-----Original Message-----
From: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lyndon Estes
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 10:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Unrealistic maize yields
Dear DSSAT users,
I am busy with a country-scale (South Africa) maize study, and I am getting
some unrealistically optimistic yield estimates in arid areas of the country
where dryland maize is not viable. For example, here are a few summary
statistics (averaged over 19 years of runs, with reinitialization each year)
for one location where mean annual rainfall is 276 mm.
YEARS PRCM yield cv.yield N failures days to maturity
1980-1999 159 1127 89 3 101
This was done with a 20% starting soil moisture content measured each July
15th (soil NO3 = 0.9; NH4 = 0.1), with auto-planting occurring anytime
between the end of October and mid-January provided soil moisture in the top
25 cm exceeds 70%. I am working with fairly minimal inputs, particularly
for soil, since I couldn't get or extrapolate information on KSat, Ph, CEC,
etc.
Here's the soil:
*LTAf000404 ARC LT -99 120 Landtype LTAf000404
@SITE COUNTRY LAT LONG SCS FAMILY
-99 S.Africa -99 -99 Landtype group Af
@ SCOM SALB SLU1 SLDR SLRO SLNF SLPF SMHB SMPX SMKE
-99 0.13 6.0 0.80 61.5 1.00 1.00 -99 -99 -99
@ SLB SLMH SLLL SDUL SSAT SRGF SSKS SBDM SLOC SLCL SLSI SLCF
SLNI SLHW SLHB SCEC SADC
13 A1 0.064 0.158 0.308 1.000 -99 1.83 0.09 2.0 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
26 A2 0.064 0.158 0.308 1.000 -99 1.83 0.09 2.0 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
40 A3 0.064 0.158 0.308 0.517 -99 1.83 0.08 2.0 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
67 B1 0.062 0.169 0.335 0.343 -99 1.76 0.06 3.3 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
94 B2 0.062 0.169 0.335 0.200 -99 1.76 0.02 3.3 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
120 B3 0.062 0.169 0.335 0.118 -99 1.76 0.00 3.3 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
And cultivar coefficients
KR0169 KROONSTAD(MICH) . IB0001 200.0 0.750 850.0 800.0 10.00 45.00
I throw down 32 kg/ha of ammonium nitrate at planting, and have a planting
density of 2.0 and row-spacing
of 200 cm.
I have done some sensitivity analyses on certain variables:
X file
SH20 (doubles yield if increased to 50% soil moisture),
MESEV (changed to R--increases yield by 300 kg/ha)
EVAPO (changed to F--increased yield by 300 kg/ha)
Soil SLNF, SLPF, SALB, SLU1, SLDR (negligible effects)
Although I wasn't worried as much about them, I also changed SDUL, SLLL, and
SAT values by 10% in the
direction that would produce less PAW. These had small effects (~ 100 kg/ha
or less--oddly, lowering SDUL
and SSAT produces small increases in yields). SLOC is already low, so I
wouldn't expect this to
be the culprit behind these unrealistic results.
I also tested different cultivar coefficients. These, together with
cultivars, together with SH20, had the
largest effects on yields, but none of these increased the number of years
in which crops failed, which is
the value I was expecting to move. These remain constant at 3 no matter how
I tweak the model.
There are of course other parameters to test in DSSAT, but these to me
seemed the most obvious places to look.
Since all these tweaks still end up with production in 16 out of 19 years in
a place that probably
shouldn't grow any maize, I was hoping for some pointers on where else I
might look to bring the simulations
closer to reality. My only other thought is that the model is overestimating
soil moisture retention in the deep sandy soil, but I am not sure how I
would fix this outside of making the soil shallower. Perhaps I am missing
something rather obvious in my settings?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Cheers, Lyndon
*********************************************************************
This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
http://www.sasa.org.za/emaildisclaimer619.aspx
*********************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:13:48 -0400
Reply-To: "Boote,Kenneth J" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Boote,Kenneth J" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Unrealistic maize yields
Comments: To: Abraham Singels <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lyndon,
I'm a bit surprised too, unless you start with too much soil moisture. You said 20% starting soil moisture. If so, that is higher than your DUL. Or did you mean 20% of available PAW, set in File X with XBUILD?
Another possibility is that you have genetic coefficients set too high (starting with a very productive cultivar): P5=850.0 G2=800.0 G3=10.00. Values of G2 and G3 this high should give 12 mt yield potential if you have no water or N limitations. The G3 is higher than I've ever seen it for CERES-Maize. In addition, you have an SLPF of 1.00 in the soil file. A value of 1.00 should be reserved for the best soils in the world (Midwestern USA or Argentine pampas). Your soil seems unremarkable, with low SOC and should have a lower SLPF.
Ken Boote
-----Original Message-----
From: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Abraham Singels
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Unrealistic maize yields
Hi Lyndon
The late Andre du Toit made several changes to the Ceres Maize model to get it to simulate maize growth and yield in South Africa better. Some of these were published in the S.A. Journal of Plant and Soil. They may have info that could help you.
To me the answer (at least an important part of it) lies in the weather data. I could comment if you send me the daily data, especially rainfall and reference evaporation. What are the lat and long of the site?
Abraham Singels
-----Original Message-----
From: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lyndon Estes
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 10:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Unrealistic maize yields
Dear DSSAT users,
I am busy with a country-scale (South Africa) maize study, and I am getting
some unrealistically optimistic yield estimates in arid areas of the country
where dryland maize is not viable. For example, here are a few summary
statistics (averaged over 19 years of runs, with reinitialization each year)
for one location where mean annual rainfall is 276 mm.
YEARS PRCM yield cv.yield N failures days to maturity
1980-1999 159 1127 89 3 101
This was done with a 20% starting soil moisture content measured each July
15th (soil NO3 = 0.9; NH4 = 0.1), with auto-planting occurring anytime
between the end of October and mid-January provided soil moisture in the top
25 cm exceeds 70%. I am working with fairly minimal inputs, particularly
for soil, since I couldn't get or extrapolate information on KSat, Ph, CEC,
etc.
Here's the soil:
*LTAf000404 ARC LT -99 120 Landtype LTAf000404
@SITE COUNTRY LAT LONG SCS FAMILY
-99 S.Africa -99 -99 Landtype group Af
@ SCOM SALB SLU1 SLDR SLRO SLNF SLPF SMHB SMPX SMKE
-99 0.13 6.0 0.80 61.5 1.00 1.00 -99 -99 -99
@ SLB SLMH SLLL SDUL SSAT SRGF SSKS SBDM SLOC SLCL SLSI SLCF
SLNI SLHW SLHB SCEC SADC
13 A1 0.064 0.158 0.308 1.000 -99 1.83 0.09 2.0 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
26 A2 0.064 0.158 0.308 1.000 -99 1.83 0.09 2.0 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
40 A3 0.064 0.158 0.308 0.517 -99 1.83 0.08 2.0 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
67 B1 0.062 0.169 0.335 0.343 -99 1.76 0.06 3.3 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
94 B2 0.062 0.169 0.335 0.200 -99 1.76 0.02 3.3 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
120 B3 0.062 0.169 0.335 0.118 -99 1.76 0.00 3.3 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
And cultivar coefficients
KR0169 KROONSTAD(MICH) . IB0001 200.0 0.750 850.0 800.0 10.00 45.00
I throw down 32 kg/ha of ammonium nitrate at planting, and have a planting
density of 2.0 and row-spacing
of 200 cm.
I have done some sensitivity analyses on certain variables:
X file
SH20 (doubles yield if increased to 50% soil moisture),
MESEV (changed to R--increases yield by 300 kg/ha)
EVAPO (changed to F--increased yield by 300 kg/ha)
Soil SLNF, SLPF, SALB, SLU1, SLDR (negligible effects)
Although I wasn't worried as much about them, I also changed SDUL, SLLL, and
SAT values by 10% in the
direction that would produce less PAW. These had small effects (~ 100 kg/ha
or less--oddly, lowering SDUL
and SSAT produces small increases in yields). SLOC is already low, so I
wouldn't expect this to
be the culprit behind these unrealistic results.
I also tested different cultivar coefficients. These, together with
cultivars, together with SH20, had the
largest effects on yields, but none of these increased the number of years
in which crops failed, which is
the value I was expecting to move. These remain constant at 3 no matter how
I tweak the model.
There are of course other parameters to test in DSSAT, but these to me
seemed the most obvious places to look.
Since all these tweaks still end up with production in 16 out of 19 years in
a place that probably
shouldn't grow any maize, I was hoping for some pointers on where else I
might look to bring the simulations
closer to reality. My only other thought is that the model is overestimating
soil moisture retention in the deep sandy soil, but I am not sure how I
would fix this outside of making the soil shallower. Perhaps I am missing
something rather obvious in my settings?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Cheers, Lyndon
*********************************************************************
This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
http://www.sasa.org.za/emaildisclaimer619.aspx
*********************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:55:00 -0600
Reply-To: "White, Jeffrey" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: "White, Jeffrey" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Unrealistic maize yields
In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I would add to Ken's observations that across crop species, it is very
hard to model yield accurately under extreme stress. Among other things
in real-world situations, you often have loss of plant stand and with
severely stunted growth, a harsher microclimate than with a closed
canopy.
- Jeff White
-----Original Message-----
From: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Boote,Kenneth J
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Unrealistic maize yields
Lyndon,
I'm a bit surprised too, unless you start with too much soil moisture.
You said 20% starting soil moisture. If so, that is higher than your
DUL. Or did you mean 20% of available PAW, set in File X with XBUILD?
Another possibility is that you have genetic coefficients set too high
(starting with a very productive cultivar): P5=850.0 G2=800.0 G3=10.00.
Values of G2 and G3 this high should give 12 mt yield potential if you
have no water or N limitations. The G3 is higher than I've ever seen it
for CERES-Maize. In addition, you have an SLPF of 1.00 in the soil
file. A value of 1.00 should be reserved for the best soils in the
world (Midwestern USA or Argentine pampas). Your soil seems
unremarkable, with low SOC and should have a lower SLPF.
Ken Boote
-----Original Message-----
From: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Abraham Singels
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Unrealistic maize yields
Hi Lyndon
The late Andre du Toit made several changes to the Ceres Maize model to
get it to simulate maize growth and yield in South Africa better. Some
of these were published in the S.A. Journal of Plant and Soil. They may
have info that could help you.
To me the answer (at least an important part of it) lies in the weather
data. I could comment if you send me the daily data, especially
rainfall and reference evaporation. What are the lat and long of the
site?
Abraham Singels
-----Original Message-----
From: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lyndon Estes
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 10:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Unrealistic maize yields
Dear DSSAT users,
I am busy with a country-scale (South Africa) maize study, and I am
getting
some unrealistically optimistic yield estimates in arid areas of the
country
where dryland maize is not viable. For example, here are a few summary
statistics (averaged over 19 years of runs, with reinitialization each
year)
for one location where mean annual rainfall is 276 mm.
YEARS PRCM yield cv.yield N failures days to maturity
1980-1999 159 1127 89 3 101
This was done with a 20% starting soil moisture content measured each
July
15th (soil NO3 = 0.9; NH4 = 0.1), with auto-planting occurring anytime
between the end of October and mid-January provided soil moisture in the
top
25 cm exceeds 70%. I am working with fairly minimal inputs,
particularly
for soil, since I couldn't get or extrapolate information on KSat, Ph,
CEC,
etc.
Here's the soil:
*LTAf000404 ARC LT -99 120 Landtype LTAf000404
@SITE COUNTRY LAT LONG SCS FAMILY
-99 S.Africa -99 -99 Landtype group Af
@ SCOM SALB SLU1 SLDR SLRO SLNF SLPF SMHB SMPX SMKE
-99 0.13 6.0 0.80 61.5 1.00 1.00 -99 -99 -99
@ SLB SLMH SLLL SDUL SSAT SRGF SSKS SBDM SLOC SLCL SLSI SLCF
SLNI SLHW SLHB SCEC SADC
13 A1 0.064 0.158 0.308 1.000 -99 1.83 0.09 2.0 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
26 A2 0.064 0.158 0.308 1.000 -99 1.83 0.09 2.0 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
40 A3 0.064 0.158 0.308 0.517 -99 1.83 0.08 2.0 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
67 B1 0.062 0.169 0.335 0.343 -99 1.76 0.06 3.3 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
94 B2 0.062 0.169 0.335 0.200 -99 1.76 0.02 3.3 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
120 B3 0.062 0.169 0.335 0.118 -99 1.76 0.00 3.3 -99 -99
-99 -99 -99 -99 -99
And cultivar coefficients
KR0169 KROONSTAD(MICH) . IB0001 200.0 0.750 850.0 800.0 10.00 45.00
I throw down 32 kg/ha of ammonium nitrate at planting, and have a
planting
density of 2.0 and row-spacing
of 200 cm.
I have done some sensitivity analyses on certain variables:
X file
SH20 (doubles yield if increased to 50% soil moisture),
MESEV (changed to R--increases yield by 300 kg/ha)
EVAPO (changed to F--increased yield by 300 kg/ha)
Soil SLNF, SLPF, SALB, SLU1, SLDR (negligible effects)
Although I wasn't worried as much about them, I also changed SDUL, SLLL,
and
SAT values by 10% in the
direction that would produce less PAW. These had small effects (~ 100
kg/ha
or less--oddly, lowering SDUL
and SSAT produces small increases in yields). SLOC is already low, so I
wouldn't expect this to
be the culprit behind these unrealistic results.
I also tested different cultivar coefficients. These, together with
cultivars, together with SH20, had the
largest effects on yields, but none of these increased the number of
years
in which crops failed, which is
the value I was expecting to move. These remain constant at 3 no matter
how
I tweak the model.
There are of course other parameters to test in DSSAT, but these to me
seemed the most obvious places to look.
Since all these tweaks still end up with production in 16 out of 19
years in
a place that probably
shouldn't grow any maize, I was hoping for some pointers on where else I
might look to bring the simulations
closer to reality. My only other thought is that the model is
overestimating
soil moisture retention in the deep sandy soil, but I am not sure how I
would fix this outside of making the soil shallower. Perhaps I am
missing
something rather obvious in my settings?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Cheers, Lyndon
*********************************************************************
This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
http://www.sasa.org.za/emaildisclaimer619.aspx
*********************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:40:12 -0400
Reply-To: Lyndon Estes <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Lyndon Estes <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Unrealistic maize yields
Comments: To: "White, Jeffrey" <[log in to unmask]>,
"Boote,Kenneth J" <[log in to unmask]>,
"abraham.singels" <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear Ken, Abraham, and Jeffrey,
Thanks very much to you and others who have responded directly for your
comments and suggestions.
To avoid filling everyone's inbox with back and forth and follow-up
questions, I will respond directly without hitting the list. Once I have
identified the particular variables/datasets behind my results, I will post
a summary to the list in case anyone else is interested in this issue.
Thanks very much,
Lyndon
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:30:09 +0200
Reply-To: Jans Bobert <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Jans Bobert <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Unrealistic maize yields
Comments: To: Lyndon Estes <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Lyndon,
yes, please post your findings; in my view this is one of the main
functions of the list!
I am currently busy calibrating several East African maize varieties,
which are adapted towards changing climatic conditions.
We can compare our findings, which might be helpful also for other users.
Looking forward for your summary.
Greetings from Berlin,
Jans
Am 4/27/2011 1:40 PM, schrieb Lyndon Estes:
> Dear Ken, Abraham, and Jeffrey,
>
> Thanks very much to you and others who have responded directly for your
> comments and suggestions.
>
> To avoid filling everyone's inbox with back and forth and follow-up
> questions, I will respond directly without hitting the list. Once I have
> identified the particular variables/datasets behind my results, I will post
> a summary to the list in case anyone else is interested in this issue.
>
> Thanks very much,
>
> Lyndon
--
____________________________
Jans Bobert
Stavangerstrasse 23
10439 Berlin
Germany
phone: ++49 (0)30 6923768
email: [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:58:36 -0700
Reply-To: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Having Different Treatments if a Sequential Simulation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear Users,
I designed a Sequential Simulation and the TREATMENT section is below:
*TREATMENTS -------------FACTOR
LEVELS------------
@N R O C TNAME.................... CU FL SA IC MP MI MF MR MC MT ME MH
SM
1 1 1 0 A1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
1 1
1 2 1 0 Fallow 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1
1 3 1 0 A1 1 1 0 0 2 17 2 0 0 0 0
2 1
2 1 1 0 A2 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0
1 1
2 2 1 0 Fallow 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1
2 3 1 0 A2 1 1 0 0 2 18 2 0 0 0 0
2 1
3 1 1 0 A3 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0
1 1
3 2 1 0 Fallow 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1
3 3 1 0 A3 1 1 0 0 2 19 2 0 0 0 0
2 1
4 1 1 0 A4 1 1 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0
1 1
4 2 1 0 Fallow 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1
4 3 1 0 A4 1 1 0 0 2 20 2 0 0 0 0
2 1
But, it doesn't run levels except the first level. Isn't it possible
to have, for example, different irrigation treatments in such a
simulation?
Best
Behnam
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:13:23 -0400
Reply-To: "Brandt, Kelsey" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Brandt, Kelsey" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Evapotranspiration Model
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
=20
If we only have a minimum data set (SRAD, Minimum Temperature, Maximum =
Temperature and Precipitation), and select FAO56 as our =
evapotranspiration model, what model is actually used? Does DSSAT =
default to a certain model, or will it calculate values so it can use =
the FAO56 model?
=20
Thanks,
Kelsey
=20
Kelsey Brandt
Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre | Centre de resecherches =
agricoles de la region semi-aride
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada | Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada
Box 1030, Swift Current, Saskatchewan S9H 3X2
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>=20
Telephone | T=E9l=E9phone 306-778-3107
Facsimile | T=E9l=E9copieur 306-778-3188
Teletypewriter | T=E9l=E9imprimeur 613-773-2600
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada=20
=20
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:49:07 +0300
Reply-To: "Munoz, Giovanni (FAOSEC)" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Munoz, Giovanni (FAOSEC)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Evapotranspiration Model
Comments: To: "Brandt, Kelsey" <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dear Kelsey,
The FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper 56 "Crop Evapotranspiration" describes
methods to calculate Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo) even if only
temperature data are available. The publication is available at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/X0490E/X0490E00.htm
The CROPWAT 8.0 software facilitates the use of these procedures and
calculations. CROPWAT 8.0 is freely available at:
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/infores_databases_cropwat.html
Regards,
Giovanni Munoz
FAO
-----Original Message-----
From: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Brandt, Kelsey
Sent: 28 April 2011 17:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Evapotranspiration Model
Hi all,
If we only have a minimum data set (SRAD, Minimum Temperature, Maximum
Temperature and Precipitation), and select FAO56 as our evapotranspiration
model, what model is actually used? Does DSSAT default to a certain model,
or will it calculate values so it can use the FAO56 model?
Thanks,
Kelsey
Kelsey Brandt
Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre | Centre de resecherches
agricoles de la region semi-aride
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada | Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada
Box 1030, Swift Current, Saskatchewan S9H 3X2
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Telephone | Téléphone 306-778-3107
Facsimile | Télécopieur 306-778-3188
Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur 613-773-2600
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:39:40 +0200
Reply-To: "Jon I. Lizaso" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Jon I. Lizaso" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Evapotranspiration Model
Comments: To: "Brandt, Kelsey" <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Kelsey,
If only the minimum weather data set is available, then the model will use
the Priestley-Taylor method. To use Penman-Monteith-FAO56 method you will
need information on wind and dew-point temperature.
Best regards,
Jon
-----Mensaje original-----
De: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications [mailto:[log in to unmask]] En
nombre de Brandt, Kelsey
Enviado el: Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:13 PM
Para: [log in to unmask]
Asunto: Evapotranspiration Model
Hi all,
If we only have a minimum data set (SRAD, Minimum Temperature, Maximum
Temperature and Precipitation), and select FAO56 as our evapotranspiration
model, what model is actually used? Does DSSAT default to a certain model,
or will it calculate values so it can use the FAO56 model?
Thanks,
Kelsey
Kelsey Brandt
Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre | Centre de resecherches
agricoles de la region semi-aride
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada | Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada
Box 1030, Swift Current, Saskatchewan S9H 3X2
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Telephone | Téléphone 306-778-3107
Facsimile | Télécopieur 306-778-3188
Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur 613-773-2600
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:42:32 +0200
Reply-To: Sebastian <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Sebastian <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: UIB
Subject: Agroecological zonning using DSSAT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,
I'm looking information about Agroecological zonning using DSSAT. Does =
anybody know about some study or papers related?=20
Regards,=20
Ing. Agr. (MSc) Sebasti=E1n Cambareri
Responsable Laboratorio
Grupo Agrometeorolog=EDa
=C1rea Recursos Naturales y Gesti=F3n Ambiental
INTA EEA Balcarce
RN 226 km 73.5 - (7620) cc 276
Balcarce, Buenos Aires
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:02:53 -0400
Reply-To: "Boote,Kenneth J" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Boote,Kenneth J" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Evapotranspiration Model
Comments: To: "Jon I. Lizaso" <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <001701cc05ba$7cfb9460$76f2bd20$@[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
All,
I don't think Jon is right on this. I think that if you specify the FAO-56 ET option and only have SRAD, Tmin, Tmax, and rainfall, the model will still run FAO-56, but it does this with the assumption that Tdew is equal to Tmin, and with a default windspeed that is buried in the code somewhere.
Jon is right in saying that you should really only use Priestley-Taylor in this case. But I think the model runs FAO-56 with the two assumptions that I indicated.
Happy computing,
Ken Boote
-----Original Message-----
From: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jon I. Lizaso
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Evapotranspiration Model
Kelsey,
If only the minimum weather data set is available, then the model will use
the Priestley-Taylor method. To use Penman-Monteith-FAO56 method you will
need information on wind and dew-point temperature.
Best regards,
Jon
-----Mensaje original-----
De: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications [mailto:[log in to unmask]] En
nombre de Brandt, Kelsey
Enviado el: Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:13 PM
Para: [log in to unmask]
Asunto: Evapotranspiration Model
Hi all,
If we only have a minimum data set (SRAD, Minimum Temperature, Maximum
Temperature and Precipitation), and select FAO56 as our evapotranspiration
model, what model is actually used? Does DSSAT default to a certain model,
or will it calculate values so it can use the FAO56 model?
Thanks,
Kelsey
Kelsey Brandt
Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre | Centre de resecherches
agricoles de la region semi-aride
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada | Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada
Box 1030, Swift Current, Saskatchewan S9H 3X2
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Telephone | Téléphone 306-778-3107
Facsimile | Télécopieur 306-778-3188
Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur 613-773-2600
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 00:26:48 +0530
Reply-To: jagan TNAU <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: jagan TNAU <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: CO2 environment modification
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=000325554c7e9bacb504a1ff1e3c
--000325554c7e9bacb504a1ff1e3c
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000325554c7e9bacac04a1ff1e3a
--000325554c7e9bacac04a1ff1e3a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear all,
I am trying to predict the yield of potato for future climate projections.
Using the downscaled weather data (TMAX, TMIN, SRAD & RAIN) for 2011 t0 2020
I modified the CO2 in the Environment modifications menu and made simulation
for all the 10 years. Unfortunately with CO2 addition and without it fresh
tuber yields are same. Please see in attachment the PTX file and
Evaluate.out for verification. Where I am doing wrong?
--
With regards
Dr.R.Jagannathan
Professor of Agronomy,
Department of Agronomy
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore - 641 003 India
PHONE: Mob: +91 94438 89891
DO NOT PRINT THIS E-MAIL UNLESS NECESSARY. THE ENVIRONMENT CONCERNS US ALL.
--000325554c7e9bacac04a1ff1e3a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div>Dear all,</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>I am trying to predict the yield of potato for future climate projecti=
ons. Using the downscaled weather data (TMAX, TMIN, SRAD & RAIN) for 20=
11 t0 2020 I modified the CO2 in the Environment modifications menu and mad=
e simulation for all the 10 years. Unfortunately with CO2 addition and with=
out it fresh tuber yields are same. Please see in attachment the PTX file a=
nd Evaluate.out for verification. Where I am doing wrong?<br clear=3D"all">
<br>-- <br>With regards<br><br>Dr.R.Jagannathan=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 <br>Professor of Agronomy,<br>Department of Agronomy<br>Tamil Nadu Agri=
cultural University, <br>Coimbatore - 641 003 India=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <br><br>=
PHONE:=A0 Mob: +91 94438 89891<br>
<br>DO NOT PRINT THIS E-MAIL UNLESS NECESSARY. THE ENVIRONMENT CONCERNS US =
ALL.<br></div>
--000325554c7e9bacac04a1ff1e3a--
--000325554c7e9bacb504a1ff1e3c
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="WBMR1101.PTX"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="WBMR1101.PTX"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Attachment-Id: f_gn221gzf0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--000325554c7e9bacb504a1ff1e3c
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Evaluate.OUT"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Evaluate.OUT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Attachment-Id: f_gn221udm1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--000325554c7e9bacb504a1ff1e3c--
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:05:45 +0300
Reply-To: Giovanni Munoz <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Giovanni Munoz <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Evapotranspiration Model
Comments: To: "Boote,Kenneth J" <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Content-type: text/plain; delsp=yes; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dear all,
While it is true that a number of assumptions are made in order to use
the FAO Penman-Monteith equation with limited data sets, it has been
proven that still the differences in results between using Penman-
Monteith with full data as opposed to limited data sets are however
smaller than the differences when using any alternative ETo equation,
including Priestley-Taylor.
You can find further details on this topic at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/X0490E/x0490e06.htm#need%20for%20a%20standard%20eto%20method
Regards,
Giovanni Munoz
FAO
On 28 Apr 2011, at 21:02, Boote,Kenneth J wrote:
> All,
>
> I don't think Jon is right on this. I think that if you specify the
> FAO-56 ET option and only have SRAD, Tmin, Tmax, and rainfall, the
> model will still run FAO-56, but it does this with the assumption
> that Tdew is equal to Tmin, and with a default windspeed that is
> buried in the code somewhere.
>
> Jon is right in saying that you should really only use Priestley-
> Taylor in this case. But I think the model runs FAO-56 with the two
> assumptions that I indicated.
>
> Happy computing,
> Ken Boote
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> ] On Behalf Of Jon I. Lizaso
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:40 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Evapotranspiration Model
>
> Kelsey,
> If only the minimum weather data set is available, then the model
> will use
> the Priestley-Taylor method. To use Penman-Monteith-FAO56 method you
> will
> need information on wind and dew-point temperature.
> Best regards,
> Jon
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> ] En
> nombre de Brandt, Kelsey
> Enviado el: Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:13 PM
> Para: [log in to unmask]
> Asunto: Evapotranspiration Model
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> If we only have a minimum data set (SRAD, Minimum Temperature, Maximum
> Temperature and Precipitation), and select FAO56 as our
> evapotranspiration
> model, what model is actually used? Does DSSAT default to a certain
> model,
> or will it calculate values so it can use the FAO56 model?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kelsey
>
>
>
> Kelsey Brandt
> Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre | Centre de resecherches
> agricoles de la region semi-aride
> Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada | Agriculture et Agroalimentaire
> Canada
> Box 1030, Swift Current, Saskatchewan S9H 3X2
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Telephone | Téléphone 306-778-3107
> Facsimile | Télécopieur 306-778-3188
> Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur 613-773-2600
> Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:53:10 -0400
Reply-To: "Boote,Kenneth J" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Boote,Kenneth J" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: CO2 environment modification
Comments: To: jagan TNAU <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jagannathan,
I looked at your PTX. I'm going to guess at a few things and let you try t=
hem out.
First, your EM is set to 11000, but your start of simulation date is 11314.=
There is a strong probability that the model never comes to your "modific=
ation" date, and therefore does not change the CO2. Either set your EM to =
be 11314, or your start of simulate to 11000 in Simulation Controls.
A less likely possibility is that the CO2 is set to "D" in Simulation Contr=
ols, giving you 380 ppm, and EM does not change it (But I don't believe thi=
s is the problem). You could set CO2 in Simulation Controls to Mauna Loa (=
M), and see what that does.
A last possibility is that the potato model is not sensitive to CO2 (I hope=
that is not the case).
Ken Boote
From: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications [mailto:[log in to unmask]] =
On Behalf Of jagan TNAU
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: CO2 environment modification
Dear all,
I am trying to predict the yield of potato for future climate projections. =
Using the downscaled weather data (TMAX, TMIN, SRAD & RAIN) for 2011 t0 202=
0 I modified the CO2 in the Environment modifications menu and made simulat=
ion for all the 10 years. Unfortunately with CO2 addition and without it fr=
esh tuber yields are same. Please see in attachment the PTX file and Evalua=
te.out for verification. Where I am doing wrong?
--
With regards
Dr.R.Jagannathan
Professor of Agronomy,
Department of Agronomy
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore - 641 003 India
PHONE: Mob: +91 94438 89891
DO NOT PRINT THIS E-MAIL UNLESS NECESSARY. THE ENVIRONMENT CONCERNS US ALL.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:35:18 -0700
Reply-To: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: DSSAT - Crop Models and Applications <[log in to unmask]>
From: Behnam <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: CO2 environment modification
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear Dr.Jagannathan,
I think the problem is related to the date you specified for the
change in CO2 concentration. I tested a similar issue in my models. I
saw that where the fertilizer application date is before the planting
date, even if the simulation is run before both of them, the effect of
fertilizer application is ignored. I suggest to check ENVIRONMENT
MODIFICATIONS section and set the modification date to a date after
planting date.
Best
Behnam