Improving Simulations of Rice in Response to Temperature and CO2
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Datasets
2.2. Crop Model Modifications
2.3. Model Calibration and Evaluation
3. Results
3.1. Evaluation with SPAR Chamber Data
3.2. Evaluation with Field Data
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
CO2 | atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration |
d | Wilmott’s index of agreement; |
LAI | leaf area index |
PAR | photosynthetic active radiation |
RMSE | root mean square error |
RUE | radiation use efficiency |
SPAR | soil-plant-atmosphere-research growth chambers |
SPGF | spikelet growth factor |
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Original ORYZA Model
Appendix A.1.1. Development
Appendix A.1.2. Photosynthesis
Appendix A.1.3. Temperature Stress
Appendix A.2. Modified ORYZA Model
Appendix A.2.1. Development
Appendix A.2.2. Coupled Gas Exchange Model
Leaf Photosynthesis
Stomatal Conductance
Leaf Energy Balance Model
Variable | Description | Unit | Equation Number |
---|---|---|---|
An | canopy or leaf net photosynthetic rate | µmol m−2 s−1 | (A4), (A12) and (A19) |
Ia | photosynthetically active radiation incident to leaf surface | µmol m−2 s−1 | (A4), (A7) |
ε | light use efficiency | kg CO2 ha−1 h−1 (J m2 s−1) | (A4), (A6) |
Am | CO2 assimilation rate at light saturation | kg CO2 ha−1 leaf h−1 | (A4), (A5) |
day respiration | µmol m−2 s−1 | (A4), (A13) and (A14) | |
I0 | photosynthetically active radiation at the top of the canopy | J m−2 ground s−1 | (A7) |
L | cumulative LAI | m2 leaf m−2 ground | (A7) |
light reflection coefficient of the canopy | (A7) | ||
k | canopy light extinction coefficient for PAR | (A7) | |
Ac | Rubisco carboxylation-limited rate | µmol m−2 s−1 | (A12), (A13) |
triose phosphate utilization (Tp)-limited photosynthetic rate | µmol m−2 s−1 | (A12), (A15) | |
Aj | RuBP regeneration-or electron transport-limited rate | µmol m−2 s−1 | (A12), (A14) |
Ci | Intercellular CO2 concentration | µbar | (A13), (A16) |
Γ* | the CO2 compensation point in the absence of Rd | µmol m−2 s−1 | (A13) |
Vcmax | maximum carboxylation rate | µmol m−2 s−1 | (A13) |
Kc | Michaelis constant of Rubisco affinity for carbon dioxide | kPa | (A13) |
O | partial pressure of oxygen at Rubisco | kPa | (A13) |
Ko | Michaelis constant of Rubisco affinity for carbon dioxide | kPa | (A13) |
J | photosystem (PS) II electron transport rate | µmol m−2 s−1 | (A17) |
TP: | triose phosphate utilization | µmol m−2 s−1 | (A15), (A18) |
Ca | ambient CO2 concentration | µbar | (A16) |
Jmax | potential maximum electron transport rate | µmol m−2 s−1 | (A17) |
σ | electron transport efficiency of PS ΙΙ | – | (A17) |
a curvature parameter | – | (A17) |
References
- Sandhu, N.; Kumar, A. Bridging the rice yield gaps under drought: QTLs, genes, and their use in breeding programs. Agronomy 2017, 7, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tripathi, A.; Tripathi, D.K.; Chauhan, D.; Kumar, N.; Singh, G. Paradigms of climate change impacts on some major food sources of the world: A review on current knowledge and future prospects. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 216, 356–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.R.; Bunce, J.A.; Tomecek, M.B.; Gealy, D.; McClung, A.; McCouch, S.R.; Ziska, L.H. Evidence for divergence of response in Indica, Japonica, and wild rice to high CO2 × temperature interaction. Glob. Change Biol. 2016, 22, 2620–2632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, Y.; Chu, C.; Yao, S. The impact of high-temperature stress on rice: Challenges and solutions. Crop. J. 2021, 9, 963–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasegawa, T.; Sakai, H.; Tokida, T.; Usui, Y.; Yoshimoto, M.; Fukuoka, M.; Nakamura, H.; Shimono, H.; Okada, M. Rice free-air carbon dioxide enrichment studies to improve assessment of climate change effects on rice agriculture. Advancesin 2016, 7, 45–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, J.T. Yield responses of southern US rice cultivars to CO2 and temperature. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2004, 122, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lv, C.; Huang, Y.; Sun, W.; Yu, L.; Zhu, J. Response of rice yield and yield components to elevated [CO2]: A synthesis of updated data from FACE experiments. Eur. J. Agron. 2019, 112, 125961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, C.; Yin, X.; He, S.; Jiang, W.; Si, C.; Struik, P.C.; Luo, W.; Li, G.; Xie, Y.; Xiong, Y.; et al. Responses of wheat and rice to factorial combinations of ambient and elevated CO2 and temperature in FACE experiments. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 22, 856–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewert, F.; Rötter, R.; Bindi, M.; Webber, H.; Trnka, M.; Kersebaum, K.; Olesen, J.; van Ittersum, M.; Janssen, S.; Rivington, M.; et al. Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 72, 287–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, J.W.; Hoogenboom, G.; Kimball, B.A.; Wall, G.W. Methodologies for simulating impacts of climate change on crop production. Field Crop. Res. 2011, 124, 357–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stella, T.; Webber, H.; E Olesen, J.; Ruane, A.C.; Fronzek, S.; Bregaglio, S.; Mamidanna, S.; Bindi, M.; Collins, B.; Faye, B.; et al. Methodology to assess the changing risk of yield failure due to heat and drought stress under climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 104033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jägermeyr, J.; Müller, C.; Ruane, A.C.; Elliott, J.; Balkovic, J.; Castillo, O.; Faye, B.; Foster, I.; Folberth, C.; Franke, J.A.; et al. Climate impacts on global agriculture emerge earlier in new generation of climate and crop models. Nat. Food 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bezner Kerr, R.; Hasegawa, T.; Lasco, R.; Bhatt, I.; Deryng, D.; Farrell, A.; Gurney-Smith, H.; Ju, H.; Lluch-Cota, S.; Meza, F.; et al. Food, Fibre, and Other Ecosystem Products, in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. In Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pörtner, H.O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 713–906. [Google Scholar]
- Maiorano, A.; Martre, P.; Asseng, S.; Ewert, F.; Müller, C.; Rötter, R.P.; Ruane, A.C.; Semenov, M.A.; Wallach, D.; Wang, E.; et al. Crop model improvement reduces the uncertainty of the response to temperature of multi-model ensembles. Field Crop. Res. 2017, 202, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, T.; Hasegawa, T.; Yin, X.; Zhu, Y.; Boote, K.; Adam, M.; Bregaglio, S.; Buis, S.; Confalonieri, R.; Fumoto, T.; et al. Uncertainties in predicting rice yield by current crop models under a wide range of climatic conditions. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 21, 1328–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Toreti, A.; Deryng, D.; Tubiello, F.N.; Müller, C.; Kimball, B.A.; Moser, G.; Boote, K.; Asseng, S.; Pugh, T.A.M.; Vanuytrecht, E.; et al. Narrowing uncertainties in the effects of elevated CO2 on crops. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 775–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fleisher, D.H.; Condori, B.; Quiroz, R.; Alva, A.; Asseng, S.; Barreda, C.; Bindi, M.; Boote, K.J.; Ferrise, R.; Franke, A.C.; et al. A potato model intercomparison across varying climates and productivity levels. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 23, 1258–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jagadish, S.; Craufurd, P.; Wheeler, T. High temperature stress and spikelet fertility in rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 1627–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hakata, M.; Wada, H.; Masumoto-Kubo, C.; Tanaka, R.; Sato, H.; Morita, S. Development of a new heat tolerance assay system for rice spikelet sterility. Plant Methods 2017, 13, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bouman, B.A.M.; Kropff, M.J.; Wopereis, M.C.S.; ten Berge, H.F.M.; van Laar, H.H. ORZYA2000: Modeling lowland rice; International Rice Research Institute: Los Banos, Philippines; Wageningen University and Research Centre: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2001; p. 235. [Google Scholar]
- Li, T.; Angeles, O.; Marcaida, M.; Manalo, E.; Manalili, M.P.; Radanielson, A.; Mohanty, S. From ORYZA2000 to ORYZA (v3): An improved simulation model for rice in drought and nitrogen-deficient environments. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2017, 237-238, 246–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- van Oort, P.A.; de Vries, M.E.; Yoshida, H.; Saito, K. Improved climate risk simulations for rice in arid environments. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, S.; Fleisher, D.; Timlin, D.; Reddy, V.R.; Wang, Z.; McClung, A. Evaluation of different crop models for simulating rice development and yield in the U.S. Mississippi Delta. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, T.; Hasegawa, T.; Liu, B.; Tang, L.; Liu, L.; Cao, W.; Zhu, Y. Current rice models underestimate yield losses from short-term heat stresses. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 27, 402–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Asseng, S.; Ewert, F.; Rosenzweig, C.; Jones, J.W.; Hatfield, J.L.; Ruane, A.C.; Boote, K.; Thorburn, P.J.; Rötter, R.; Cammarano, D.; et al. Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 827–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yin, X. Improving ecophysiological simulation models to predict the impact of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop productivity. Ann. Bot. 2013, 112, 465–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Negi, J.; Hashimoto-Sugimoto, M.; Kusumi, K.; Iba, K. New approaches to the biology of stomatal guard cells. Plant Cell Physiol. 2013, 55, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Konrad, W.; Katul, G.; Roth-Nebelsick, A. Leaf temperature and its dependence on atmospheric CO2 and leaf size. Geol. J. 2020, 56, 866–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boote, K.J.; Jones, J.W.; White, J.W.; Asseng, S.; Lizaso, J.I. Putting mechanisms into crop production models. Plant, Cell Environ. 2013, 36, 1658–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Kim, S.-H.; Timlin, D.J.; Fleisher, D.H.; Quebedeaux, B.; Reddy, V.R. Simulating canopy transpiration and photosynthesis of corn plants under contrasting water regimes using a coupled model. Trans. ASABE 2009, 52, 1011–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fleisher, D.H.; Timlin, D.J.; Yang, Y.; Reddy, V. Simulation of potato gas exchange rates using SPUDSIM. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2010, 150, 432–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, W.; Fleisher, D.; Timlin, D.; Li, S.; Wang, Z.; Reddy, V. Effects of elevated CO2 and temperature on soybean growth and gas exchange rates: A modified GLYCIM model. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2021, 312, 108700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Fleisher, D.; Wang, Z.; Barnaby, J.; Timlin, D.; Reddy, V. Application of a coupled model of photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and transpiration for rice leaves and canopy. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 182, 106047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, J.T.; Allen, L.H. Contrasting crop species responses to CO2 and temperature: Rice, soybean and citrus. Vegetatio 1993, 104, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, J.T.; Allen, L.H., Jr. Effects of CO2 and temperature on rice: A summary of five growing seasons. J. Agric. Meteorol. 1993, 48, 575–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, J.; Allen, L.; Boote, K.; Jones, P.; Jones, J. Developmental responses of rice to photoperiod and carbon dioxide concentration. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1990, 50, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, J.T.; Allen, L.H. Rice Growth, Yield and Photosynthetic Responses to Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Drought. J. Crop Improv. 2005, 13, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, J.; Allen, L.; Boote, K. Response of rice to carbon dioxide and temperature. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1992, 60, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruane, A.C.; Goldberg, R.; Chryssanthacopoulos, J. Climate forcing datasets for agricultural modeling: Merged products for gap-filling and historical climate series estimation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2015, 200, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- UA-CES (University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service). Arkansas Rice Performance Trials; University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service: Little Rock, AR, USA, 2015.
- Wilson, l.T.; Yang, Y.; Wang, J. Integrated Agricultural Information and Management System (iAIMS): World Climatic Data. 2015. [cited 2015 April]. Available online: http://beaumont.tamu.edu/ClimaticData/ (accessed on 20 November 2022).
- Kim, S.; Yang, Y.; Timlin, D.J.; Fleisher, D.H.; Dathe, A.; Reddy, V.R.; Staver, K. Modeling temperature responses of leaf growth, development, and biomass in maize with MAIZSIM. Agron. J. 2012, 104, 1523–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fleisher, D.H.; Shillito, R.M.; Timlin, D.J.; Kim, S.; Reddy, V.R. Approaches to modeling potato leaf appearance rate. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 522–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rebolledo, M.C.; Dingkuhn, M.; Péré, P.; McNally, K.L.; Luquet, D. Developmental dynamics and early growth vigour in rice. I. relationship between development rate (1/Phyllochron) and growth. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2012, 198, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez, B.; Rasmussen, A.; Porter, J.R. Temperatures and the growth and development of maize and rice: A review. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 20, 408–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Farquhar, G.D.; Von Caemmerer, S.; Berry, J.A. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 1980, 149, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ball, J.T.; Woodrow, I.E.; Berry, J.A. A model predicting stomatal conductance and its contribution to the control of photosynthesis under different environmental conditions. In Progress in Photosynthesis Research; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1987; pp. 221–224. ISBN 978-94-017-0519-6. [Google Scholar]
- Matsui, T.; Omasa, K.; Horie, T. The difference in sterility due to high temperatures during the flowering period among japonica-rice varieties. Plant Prod. Sci. 2001, 4, 90–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Oort, P.; Zhang, T.; de Vries, M.; Heinemann, A.; Meinke, H. Correlation between temperature and phenology prediction error in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Agric. For. Meteorol. 2011, 151, 1545–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, C.; Cui, K.; Li, Q.; Li, L.; Wang, W.; Hu, Q.; Ding, Y.; Li, G.; Fahad, S.; Huang, J.; et al. Estimating the yield stability of heat-tolerant rice genotypes under various heat conditions across reproductive stages: A 5-year case study. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Willmott, C.J. Some comments on the evaluation of model performance. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 1982, 63, 1309–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, J.T.; Allen, L.H.J.; Boote, K.J.; Rowland-Bamford, A.J.; Jones, J.W.; Jones, P.H.; Bowes, G.; Albrecht, S.L. Response of vegetation to carbon dioxide, Ser. No. 043. In Response of Rice to Subambient and Superambient Carbon Dioxide Concentrations; U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (in cooperation with University of Florida) for the US Dept. of Energy, Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Office of Energy Research: Washington, DC, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Ziska, L.H.; Fleisher, D.H.; Linscombe, S. Ratooning as an adaptive management tool for climatic change in rice systems along a north-south transect in the southern Mississippi valley. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 263, 409–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasegawa, T.; Li, T.; Yin, X.; Zhu, Y.; Boote, K.; Baker, J.; Bregaglio, S.; Buis, S.; Confalonieri, R.; Fugice, J.; et al. Causes of variation among rice models in yield response to CO2 examined with Free-Air CO2 Enrichment and growth chamber experiments. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 14858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fleisher, D.H.; Dathe, A.; Timlin, D.; Reddy, V. Improving potato drought simulations: Assessing water stress factors using a coupled model. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2015, 200, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basu, P.; Sharma, A.; Garg, I.; Sukumaran, N. Tuber sink modifies photosynthetic response in potato under water stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 1999, 42, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Julia, C.; Dingkuhn, M. Variation in time of day of anthesis in rice in different climatic environments. Eur. J. Agron. 2012, 43, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishimaru, T.; Hirabayashi, H.; Ida, M.; Takai, T.; San-Oh, Y.A.; Yoshinaga, S.; Ando, I.; Ogawa, T.; Kondo, M. A genetic resource for early-morning flowering trait of wild rice Oryza officinalis to mitigate high tempera-ture-induced spikelet sterility at anthesis. Ann. Bot. 2010, 106, 515–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Islam, M.; Morison, J. Influence of solar radiation and temperature on irrigated rice grain yield in Bangladesh. Field Crop. Res. 1992, 30, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagai, T.; Makino, A. Differences Between Rice and Wheat in Temperature Responses of Photosynthesis and Plant Growth. Plant Cell Physiol. 2009, 50, 744–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Espe, M.B.; Yang, H.; Cassman, K.G.; Guilpart, N.; Sharifi, H.; Linquist, B.A. Estimating yield potential in temperate high-yielding, direct-seeded US rice production systems. Field Crop. Res. 2016, 193, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samejima, H.; Kikuta, M.; Katura, K.; Menge, D.; Gichuhi, E.; Wainaina, C.; Kimani, J.; Inukai, Y.; Yamauchi, A.; Makihara, D. A method for evaluating cold tolerance in rice during reproductive growth stages under natural low-temperature conditions in tropical highlands in Kenya. Plant Prod. Sci. 2020, 23, 466–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goudriaan, J.; van Laar, H.H. Simulation of Crop Growth Processes; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Spitters, C.J.T.; Toussaint, H.A.J.M.; Goudriaan, J. Separating the diffuse and direct component of global radiation and its im-plications for modeling canopy photosynthesis. I. components of incoming radiation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1986, 38, 217–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, X.; Goudriaan, J.; Lantinga, E.A.; Vos, J.; Spiertz, H.J. A Flexible Sigmoid Function of Determinate Growth. Ann. Bot. 2002, 91, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galantai, A. The theory of Newton’s method. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2000, 124, 25–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, S.H.; Lieth, J.H. A coupled model of photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and transpiration for a rose leaf (Rosa hybrida L.). Ann. Bot. 2003, 91, 771–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harley, P.C.; Loreto, F.; Di Marco, G.; Sharkey, T.D. Theoretical considerations when estimating the mesophyll conductance to CO2 flux by analysis of the response of photosynthesis to CO2. Plant Physiol. 1992, 98, 1429–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sharkey, T.D.; Bernacchi, C.J.; Farquhar, G.D.; Singsaas, E.L. Fitting photosynthetic carbon dioxide response curves for C3 leaves. Plant Cell Environ. 2007, 30, 1035–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Campbell, G.S.; Norman, J.M. An Introduction to Environmental Biophysics, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variety | Year | CO2 (ppm) | T (°C) | Obs (kg ha−1) | ORYZA-V1 | ORYZA-V3 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sim (kg ha−1) | Sim/Obs | Sim (kg ha−1) | Sim/Obs | |||||
IR30 | 1987 | 330 | 31/31 | 12,925 | 15,078 | 1.17 | 14,540 | 1.12 |
1987 | 330 | 31/31 | 16,920 | 14,678 | 0.87 | 14,790 | 0.87 | |
1987 | 660 | 31/31 | 17,625 | 20,856 | 1.18 | 22,546 | 1.28 | |
1987 | 660 | 31/31 | 21,855 | 19,828 | 0.91 | 22,140 | 1.01 | |
1989 | 330 | 28/21 | 15,275 | 16,038 | 1.05 | 15,999 | 1.05 | |
1989 | 660 | 25/18 | 18,330 | 22,005 | 1.20 | 21,369 | 1.17 | |
1989 | 660 | 28/21 | 20,915 | 20,811 | 1.00 | 22,215 | 1.06 | |
1989 | 660 | 34/27 | 19,035 | 16,794 | 0.88 | 18,074 | 0.95 | |
1989 | 660 | 37/30 | 16,685 | 13,607 | 0.82 | 13,265 | 0.80 | |
1990 | 330 | 28/21 | 17,836 | 19,032 | 1.07 | 19,472 | 1.09 | |
1990 | 660 | 28/21 | 22,869 | 23,614 | 1.03 | 27,016 | 1.18 | |
Average | 18,206 | 18,395 | 1.02 | 19,221 | 1.05 | |||
d | - | 0.84 | - | 0.85 | - | |||
RMSE (kg ha−1) | - | 2232 | - | 2618 | - | |||
Cocodrie | 2000 | 350 | 28/28 | 18,036 | 15,174 | 0.84 | 15,979 | 0.89 |
2000 | 700 | 24/24 | 24,336 | 20,558 | 0.84 | 20,603 | 0.85 | |
2000 | 700 | 28/28 | 25,236 | 19,200 | 0.76 | 21,664 | 0.86 | |
2000 | 700 | 32/32 | 24,048 | 17,918 | 0.75 | 20,643 | 0.86 | |
2000 | 700 | 36/36 | 12,312 | 14,267 | 1.16 | 14,945 | 1.21 | |
Average | 20,794 | 17,423 | 0.87 | 18,767 | 0.93 | |||
d | - | 0.74 | - | 0.84 | - | |||
RMSE (kg ha−1) | - | 4479 | - | 3145 | - | |||
Jefferson | 2000 | 350 | 28/28 | 15,876 | 15,224 | 0.96 | 16,033 | 1.01 |
2000 | 700 | 24/24 | 25,848 | 20,695 | 0.80 | 20,670 | 0.80 | |
2000 | 700 | 28/28 | 21,384 | 19,329 | 0.90 | 21,738 | 1.02 | |
2000 | 700 | 32/32 | 20,772 | 18,005 | 0.87 | 20,718 | 1.00 | |
2000 | 700 | 36/36 | 10,152 | 14,271 | 1.41 | 14,941 | 1.47 | |
Average | 18,806 | 17,505 | 0.99 | 18,820 | 1.06 | |||
d | - | 0.82 | - | 0.84 | - | |||
RMSE (kg ha−1) | - | 3341 | - | 3159 | - |
Variety | Year | CO2 (ppm) | T (°C) | Obs Yield (kg ha−1) | ORYZA-V1 | ORYZA-V2 | ORYZA-V3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sim (kg ha−1) | Sim/Obs | Sim (kg ha−1) | Sim/Obs | Sim (kg ha−1) | Sim/Obs | |||||
IR30 | 1987 | 330 | 31/31 | 5200 | 3996 | 0.77 | 3996 | 0.77 | 4169 | 0.80 |
1987 | 330 | 31/31 | 4300 | 4744 | 1.10 | 4744 | 1.10 | 5112 | 1.19 | |
1987 | 660 | 31/31 | 6800 | 5587 | 0.82 | 5587 | 0.82 | 6428 | 0.95 | |
1987 | 660 | 31/31 | 6400 | 6532 | 1.02 | 6532 | 1.02 | 7645 | 1.19 | |
1989 | 330 | 28/21 | 6600 | 5332 | 0.81 | 5332 | 0.81 | 5687 | 0.86 | |
1989 | 660 | 25/18 | 8400 | 7170 | 0.85 | 7170 | 0.85 | 7072 | 0.84 | |
1989 | 660 | 28/21 | 10,400 | 7294 | 0.70 | 7294 | 0.70 | 8063 | 0.78 | |
1989 | 660 | 34/27 | 3400 | 5726 | 1.68 | 3223 | 0.95 | 3627 | 1.07 | |
1989 | 660 | 37/30 | 1000 | 1867 | 1.87 | 938 | 0.94 | 995 | 0.99 | |
1990 | 330 | 28/21 | 8000 | 6617 | 0.83 | 6617 | 0.83 | 7077 | 0.88 | |
1990 | 660 | 28/21 | 10,100 | 8788 | 0.87 | 8788 | 0.87 | 9922 | 0.98 | |
Average | 6418 | 5787 | 1.03 | 5475 | 0.88 | 5982 | 0.96 | |||
d | - | 0.88 | - | 0.92 | - | 0.96 | - | |||
RMSE (kg ha−1) | - | 1529 | - | 1334 | - | 1062 | - | |||
Cocodrie | 2000 | 350 | 28/28 | 5230 | 4958 | 0.95 | 4958 | 0.95 | 5740 | 1.10 |
2000 | 700 | 24/24 | 6814 | 7457 | 1.03 | 7457 | 1.03 | 8013 | 1.11 | |
2000 | 700 | 28/28 | 7823 | 6331 | 0.83 | 6331 | 0.83 | 7649 | 1.00 | |
2000 | 700 | 32/32 | 6733 | 5873 | 0.84 | 5873 | 0.84 | 7433 | 1.06 | |
2000 | 700 | 36/36 | 0 | 3344 | 984 | - | 1104 | - | ||
Average | 5320 | 5593 | 0.91 | 5121 | 0.91 | 5988 | 1.07 | |||
d | - | 0.82 | - | 0.96 | - | 0.98 | - | |||
RMSE (kg ha−1) | - | 1446 | - | 795 | - | 829 | - | |||
Jefferson | 2000 | 350 | 28/28 | 4608 | 4546 | 0.99 | 4546 | 0.99 | 5261 | 1.14 |
2000 | 700 | 24/24 | 7236 | 6884 | 0.95 | 6884 | 0.95 | 7510 | 1.04 | |
2000 | 700 | 28/28 | 7236 | 5804 | 0.80 | 5804 | 0.80 | 7011 | 0.97 | |
2000 | 700 | 32/32 | 5976 | 5391 | 0.90 | 5391 | 0.90 | 6771 | 1.13 | |
2000 | 700 | 36/36 | 0 | 3052 | - | 934 | - | 1066 | - | |
Average | 5011 | 5135 | 0.91 | 4712 | 0.91 | 5524 | 1.07 | |||
d | - | 0.85 | - | 0.97 | - | 0.98 | - | |||
RMSE (kg ha−1) | - | 1539 | - | 824 | - | 681 | - |
Exp | CO2 (ppm) | Observed (kg ha−1) | ORYZA-V1 | ORYZA-V3 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sim (kg ha−1) | Sim/Obs | Sim (kg ha−1) | Sim/Obs | |||
I & II | 160 | 3400 | 2386 ± 430 | 0.70 | 1547 ± 615 | 0.45 |
I & II | 250 | 4100 | 3629 ± 837 | 0.89 | 3564 ± 647 | 0.87 |
I & II | 330 | 4800 | 4426 ± 948 | 0.92 | 4840 ± 608 | 1.01 |
II only | 500 | 6830 | 5435 ± 1000 | 0.80 | 6382 ± 520 | 0.93 |
I & II | 660 | 6600 | 5966 ± 1038 | 0.90 | 7162 ± 535 | 1.09 |
I & II | 900 | 7300 | 6390 ± 1064 | 0.88 | 7865 ± 563 | 1.08 |
d | - | 0.91 | - | 0.94 | - | |
RMSE (kg ha−1) | - | 1065 | 872 | - |
Tmax (°C) | Obs Yield (kg ha−1) | ORYZA-V1 | ORYZA-V2 | ORYZA-V3 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sim (kg ha−1) | Sim/Obs | Sim (kg ha−1) | Sim/Obs | Sim (kg ha−1) | Sim/Obs | |||||
Cal | 28-March | 2013 | 30.2 | 9382 | 9830 | 1.05 | 10,363 | 1.11 | 11,495 | 1.23 |
16-April | 2013 | 30.6 | 10,289 | 10,002 | 0.97 | 10,002 | 0.97 | 11,300 | 1.10 | |
30-May | 2013 | 34.2 | 8928 | 8867 | 0.99 | 8990 | 1.01 | 10,253 | 1.15 | |
17-June | 2013 | 29.1 | 6607 | 7754 | 1.17 | 5001 | 0.76 | 5662 | 0.86 | |
Average | 31.0 | 8802 | 9113 | 1.05 | 8589 | 0.96 | 9678 | 1.08 | ||
d | - | 0.92 | - | 0.92 | - | 0.86 | - | |||
RMSE (kg ha−1) | - | 633 | - | 952 | - | 1426 | - | |||
Val | 30-March | 2012 | 30.1 | 11,903 | 8415 | 0.71 | 10,663 | 0.90 | 11,863 | 1.00 |
11-May | 2012 | 31.0 | 10,794 | 6664 | 0.62 | 7793 | 0.72 | 8867 | 0.82 | |
26-March | 2014 | 28.3 | 12,055 | 8967 | 0.74 | 8967 | 0.74 | 9995 | 0.83 | |
18-April | 2014 | 29.2 | 11,349 | 8818 | 0.78 | 8818 | 0.78 | 10,059 | 0.89 | |
2-May | 2014 | 31.1 | 9432 | 9190 | 0.97 | 9190 | 0.97 | 10,500 | 1.11 | |
21-May | 2014 | 33.3 | 9028 | 9216 | 1.02 | 9216 | 1.02 | 10,545 | 1.17 | |
5-June | 2014 | 30.4 | 6708 | 7781 | 1.16 | 7781 | 1.16 | 8953 | 1.33 | |
18-June | 2014 | 27.2 | 7969 | 6679 | 0.84 | 6679 | 0.84 | 7705 | 0.97 | |
3-April | 2015 | 33.8 | 8020 | 8432 | 1.05 | 8636 | 1.08 | 9777 | 1.22 | |
21-April | 2015 | 34.6 | 7011 | 6852 | 0.98 | 7930 | 1.13 | 9083 | 1.30 | |
5-May | 2015 | 34.7 | 8574 | 6144 | 0.72 | 7531 | 0.88 | 8650 | 1.01 | |
19-May | 2015 | 32.3 | 9028 | 7776 | 0.86 | 8120 | 0.90 | 9277 | 1.03 | |
3-June | 2015 | 28.3 | 7364 | 8368 | 1.14 | 8368 | 1.14 | 9554 | 1.30 | |
Average | 31.2 | 9172 | 7946 | 0.89 | 8438 | 0.94 | 9602 | 1.07 | ||
d | - | 0.53 | - | 0.66 | - | 0.66 | - | |||
RMSE (kg ha−1) | - | 2089 | - | 1606 | - | 1530 | - |
Tmax (°C) | Obs Yield (kg ha−1) | ORYZA-V1 | ORYZA-V2 | ORYZA-V3 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sim (kg ha−1) | Sim/Obs | Sim (kg ha−1) | Sim/Obs | Sim (kg ha−1) | Sim/Obs | |||||
Cal | 28-March | 2013 | 32.6 | 11,954 | 11,987 | 1.00 | 12,164 | 1.02 | 13,287 | 1.11 |
16-April | 2013 | 30.0 | 12,004 | 11,969 | 1.00 | 11,969 | 1.00 | 12,773 | 1.06 | |
30-May | 2013 | 33.8 | 10,542 | 10,606 | 1.01 | 10,606 | 1.01 | 11,370 | 1.08 | |
17-June | 2013 | 31.5 | 9180 | 9442 | 1.03 | 8320 | 0.91 | 9427 | 1.03 | |
Average | 32.0 | 10,920 | 11,001 | 1.01 | 10,765 | 0.98 | 11,714 | 1.07 | ||
d | - | 0.99 | - | 0.97 | - | 0.90 | - | |||
RMSE (kg ha−1) | - | 137 | - | 444 | - | 883 | - | |||
Val | 30-March | 2012 | 31.3 | 13,820 | 10,265 | 0.74 | 11,849 | 0.86 | 12,330 | 0.89 |
11-May | 2012 | 34.0 | 12,660 | 8146 | 0.64 | 9846 | 0.78 | 11,201 | 0.88 | |
26-March | 2014 | 27.6 | 11,147 | 10,936 | 0.98 | 10,936 | 0.98 | 12,188 | 1.09 | |
18-April | 2014 | 30.2 | 12,761 | 10,748 | 0.84 | 10,748 | 0.84 | 12,252 | 0.96 | |
2-May | 2014 | 31.0 | 12,105 | 10,435 | 0.86 | 10,435 | 0.86 | 11,403 | 0.94 | |
21-May | 2014 | 33.3 | 12,105 | 10,203 | 0.84 | 10,203 | 0.84 | 10,960 | 0.91 | |
5-June | 2014 | 30.6 | 9533 | 9285 | 0.97 | 9285 | 0.97 | 10,082 | 1.06 | |
18-June | 2014 | 27.6 | 9079 | 8142 | 0.90 | 8142 | 0.90 | 9395 | 1.03 | |
3-April | 2015 | 32.5 | 11,349 | 10,283 | 0.91 | 10,524 | 0.93 | 11,742 | 1.03 | |
21-April | 2015 | 34.6 | 11,449 | 8365 | 0.73 | 9658 | 0.84 | 11,082 | 0.97 | |
5-May | 2015 | 34.7 | 11,702 | 7485 | 0.64 | 9182 | 0.78 | 10,535 | 0.90 | |
19-May | 2015 | 32.9 | 11,349 | 9486 | 0.84 | 9896 | 0.87 | 11,316 | 1.00 | |
3-June | 2015 | 28.3 | 9634 | 10,200 | 1.06 | 10,200 | 1.06 | 11,150 | 1.16 | |
Average | 31.2 | 11,438 | 9537 | 0.83 | 10,069 | 0.88 | 11,203 | 0.98 | ||
d | - | 0.18 | - | 0.54 | - | 0.77 | - | |||
RMSE (kg ha−1) | - | 2429 | - | 1662 | - | 955 | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, S.; Fleisher, D.H.; Timlin, D.; Barnaby, J.; Sun, W.; Wang, Z.; Reddy, V.R. Improving Simulations of Rice in Response to Temperature and CO2. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2927. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122927
Li S, Fleisher DH, Timlin D, Barnaby J, Sun W, Wang Z, Reddy VR. Improving Simulations of Rice in Response to Temperature and CO2. Agronomy. 2022; 12(12):2927. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122927
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Sanai, David H. Fleisher, Dennis Timlin, Jinyoung Barnaby, Wenguang Sun, Zhuangji Wang, and V. R. Reddy. 2022. "Improving Simulations of Rice in Response to Temperature and CO2" Agronomy 12, no. 12: 2927. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122927