| 000 | 04486nas|a2200421 i 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | 20260817163504.0 | ||
| 008 | 020823s2002 th uzm rtt 00| a1eng d | ||
| 035 | _a.b11864382 | ||
| 099 | 9 | _aAIT Thesis no. WM-01-12 | |
| 100 | 1 | _aDixit, Prakash Narayan | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | _aAssessment and comparison of three crop growth models under tropical climatic conditions |
| 260 |
_aBangkok : _bAsian Institute of Technology, _c2002 |
||
| 300 | _a94 leaves | ||
| 490 | 1 |
_aThesis ; _vno. WM-01-12 |
|
| 500 | _aA thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Engineering | ||
| 502 | _aThesis (M.Eng.) - Asian Institute of Technology, 2002 | ||
| 520 | _aThis study focussed on the comparison and assessment of three crop growth models under tropical climatic conditions. CERES-Maize, CropSyst and SWACROP models were selected for the study. Secondary data from eight experiments, conducted at four different sites in Thailand to run CERES-Maize model, were used as inputs in the other two models. The theoretical structure of the models was compared and all the three models were run to simulate moisture content in different soil layers, evapotranspiration, maximum leaf area index, biomass and grain yield. It was found that CropSyst requires many cultivar and site specific data. SW ACROP does not require much site specific and cultivar specific data and also does not take into account the initial nitrogen and organic matter present in the soil hence it produced poor simulation and predicted biomass, yield, max maximum leaf area index poorly. Biomass, grain yield, moisture content in different soil layers and evapotranspiration were well simulated by CERES-Maize and CropSyst. Moisture content in different soil layers showed similar variation with time in CERES-Maize and SWACROP. However CropSyst did not give very good simulation of soil moisture in all the layers except the top layer. CERES-Maize and CropSyst produced almost the same potential evapotranspiration while SW ACROP predicted higher potential evapotranspiration. All the three models simulated different actual evapotranspiration but CERES-Maize gave higher amount of actual evapotranspiration. Statistical parameters showed that CERES-Maize predicted biomass, yield and maximum leaf area index well (%RMSE = 7.43, 9.53 and 7.03; CD= 0.94, 0.83 and 0.52 for biomass, yield and max. LAI respectively). CropSyst predicted biomass and yield very well however it did not give good simulation of maximum leaf area index (%RMSE = 4.27, 8.66 and 30.58; CD = 0.96, 0.83 and 0.16 for biomass, yield and max. LAI respectively). SW ACROP could not simulate any of the three parameters very well and gave poor simulations (%RMSE = 15.45, 18.51 and 13.18; CD= 0.72, 0.73 and 0.26 for biomass, yield and max. LAI respectively). Biomass and yield were significantly underestimated by SW A CROP. This could mainly be attributed to the lack of cultivar specific input requirements. Sensitivity analysis showed that models are sensitive to certain input parameters e.g., potential kernel number in CERES-Maize, specific leaf area in CropSyst and maximum water use efficiency in SW A CROP, which need to be determined by experiments. | ||
| 650 | 1 | 0 |
_aCrops _xGrowth _xTropical condition |
| 700 | 1 |
_aClemente, Roberto S., _eChairperson |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_aGupta, Ashim Das, _eExamination Committee |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_aIida, Toshiaki, _eExamination committee |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_aBabel, Mukand Singh, _eExamination Committee |
|
| 710 | 2 |
_aDANIDA, _eScholarship donor |
|
| 810 | 2 |
_aAsian Institute of Technology. _tThesis ; _vno. WM-01-12 |
|
| 856 |
_3Full-Text _uhttp://203.159.5.9/ait-thesis/detail.php?q=B07777 |
||
| 907 |
_a.b11864382 _bmnait _cu |
||
| 902 | _a240402 | ||
| 998 |
_b0 _c020823 _dm _ea _fu _g0 |
||
| 945 | _lmnait | ||
| 945 | _lmnait | ||
| 945 | _lmnarc | ||
| 942 | _c20 | ||
| 942 | _c40 | ||
| 909 |
_aBarcode : 30050120593651 _bCREATED : 2001-03-26 _cRECORD # : i12295267 _dLPATRON : 1027771 _eLCHKIN : 2017-08-15 _f# RENEWALS : 0 _g# OVERDUE : 0 _hIUSE3 : 2 _iTOT CHKOUT : 6 _jTOT RENEW : 3 |
||
| 909 |
_aBarcode : 30050120593644 _bCREATED : 2001-03-26 _cRECORD # : i12295279 _dLPATRON : 1029276 _eLCHKIN : 2019-09-28 _f# RENEWALS : 0 _g# OVERDUE : 0 _hIUSE3 : 0 _iTOT CHKOUT : 8 _jTOT RENEW : 7 |
||
| 909 |
_aBarcode : 30050120236178 _bCREATED : 2016-03-25 _cRECORD # : i12909336 _dLPATRON : 0 _eLCHKIN : - _f# RENEWALS : 0 _g# OVERDUE : 0 _hIUSE3 : 0 _iTOT CHKOUT : 0 _jTOT RENEW : 0 |
||
| 999 |
_c8920 _d8920 |
||