Claim · model-written summary
Application of both models outside prior temperature ranges showed limitations.
Not reportedTaxonMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingDirectionValue
Verbatim
e0“limitations for the application of both models outside the past temperature ranges became apparent”
Title
Comparing Apple and Pear Phenology and Model Performance: What Seven Decades of Observations Reveal
Bianca Drepper; Anne Gobin; Serge Remy; et al. Agronomy 2020. doi:10.3390/agronomy10010073
Other claims from this paper (8)
- Association Apple flowering was 9.5 days earlier after warm dormancy periods.
- Association Pear flowering was 11.5 days earlier after warm dormancy periods.
- Association The bloom date and temperature relationship was nonlinear.
- Observation After warm chilling, models predicted apple dormancy break 5.0 days later.
- Observation After warm chilling, models predicted pear dormancy break 10.6 days later.
- Method / resource PLSR gave mixed signals about flowering onset after warm chilling.
- Method / resource A dynamic chill model with growing degree days had lower flowering prediction errors than a continuous chill-forcing model.
- Method / resource Model performance was sensitive to parametrization method.