Extending the CSM-CERES-Beet Model to Simulate Impact of Observed Leaf Disease Damage on Sugar Beet Yield
A CSM-CERES-Beet pest damage routine was modified to simulate the impact of Cercospora leaf spot disease effects on sugar beet yield. Foliar disease effects on sugar beet growth and yield were incorporated as daily damage to leaf area and photosynthesis, which was linked to daily crop growth and bio...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Agronomy (Basel) 2020-12, Vol.10 (12), p.1930 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | A CSM-CERES-Beet pest damage routine was modified to simulate the impact of Cercospora leaf spot disease effects on sugar beet yield. Foliar disease effects on sugar beet growth and yield were incorporated as daily damage to leaf area and photosynthesis, which was linked to daily crop growth and biomass accumulation. An experiment was conducted in Southwest Germany (2016–2018) with different levels of disease infection. Data collected included time-series leaf area index, top weight, storage root weight and Cercospora leaf spot disease progress. The model was calibrated using statistical and visual fit for one treatment and evaluated for eight treatments over three years. Model performance of the calibration treatment for all three variables resulted in R2 values higher than 0.82 and d-statistics higher than 0.94. Evaluation treatments for all three observation groups resulted in high R2 and d-statistics with few exceptions mainly caused by weather extremes. Root mean square error values for calibration and evaluation treatments were satisfactory. Model statistics indicate that the approach can be used as a suitable decision support system to simulate the impact of observed Cercospora leaf spot damage on accumulated above-ground biomass and storage root yield on a plot/site-specific scale. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2073-4395 2073-4395 |
DOI: | 10.3390/agronomy10121930 |