Abstract
This work compares the performance of PILOTE, an operative crop model developed by IRSTA Montpellier France, with that of well established model, CropSyst, in simulating berseem (Trifolium Alexandrinum L.) growth under different water regimes in the semi-arid climate of Tadla (Morocco). Both based on Beer’s law via the intercepted potential active radiation (IPAR) regarding dry matter accumulation, the models differ in the level of complexity describing crop development, biomass growth, root water uptake principle and consequently, in the number of input parameters. The models were calibrated on an unstressed irrigation treatment in 2009/10, and were validated on other stressed and unstressed treatments in 2009/10 and 2010/11. Although PILOTE required fewer input parameters and data than CropSyst, it performed similarly better when simulating both biomass and soil water balance. The use of different numbers of parameters and crop growth modules by the tested models did not influence substantially the simulation results. Therefore, for management purposes and in conditions of limited input information, the use of simpler models should be encouraged.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 5
Claim · model-written summary
PILOTE needed fewer inputs than CropSyst.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“PILOTE required fewer input parameters and data than CropSyst”
Claim · model-written summary
PILOTE performed similarly to CropSyst for biomass simulation.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“it performed similarly better when simulating both biomass and soil water balance.”
Claim · model-written summary
PILOTE performed similarly for soil water balance simulation.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“it performed similarly better when simulating both biomass and soil water balance.”
Claim · model-written summary
Differences in parameter count and growth modules did not substantially affect simulations.
- Outcome
- simulation resultse0
- Direction
- did not influence substantiallye0
- Qualifier
- different numbers of parameters and crop growth modulese0
- Comparator
- tested modelse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The use of different numbers of parameters and crop growth modules by the tested models did not influence substantially the simulation results.”
Claim · model-written summary
Simpler models are recommended for management when input information is limited.
- Outcome
- use of simpler models should be encouragede0
- Qualifier
- conditions of limited input informatione0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“for management purposes and in conditions of limited input information, the use of simpler models should be encouraged.”