Abstract
Unbiased prediction of plant growth stages is essential for accurate simulation of stage‐specific responses to environmental factors. The phenology model in SOYGRO V5.42 was compared with the phenology model in CROPGRO V3.0 for prediction of flowering and maturity date. Data came from 17 sources in North America and covered a wide range of maturity groups. An additional large‐scale data set from the U.S. Soybean Uniform Tests was used to evaluate predictions of maturity date. Parameters of the phenology models were estimated with an optimization procedure in which the downhill simplex method determined the direction of the search. While the optimization procedure was valuable to estimate the parameters, additional criteria were required to obtain realistic values. Based on the root mean square error (RMSE) criterion between predicted and observed dates, SOYGRO and CROPGRO predicted flowering equally well. Development rate after flowering was underpredicted by SOYGRO in cool environments so that in some years, maturity was predicted very late. CROPGRO has a separate temperature function after beginning seedfill, which decreased the RMSE for prediction of maturity date compared with SOYGRO, especially for early maturity cultivars. Allowing the critical short day length to increase after flowering date in the CROPGRO model consistently decreased the RMSE for prediction of beginning seedfill and maturity. CROPGRO was superior to SOYGRO for prediction of maturity date.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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
SOYGRO and CROPGRO predicted soybean flowering equally well, judged by RMSE.
- Taxon
- Soybean
Glycine maxt0 - Outcome
- predicted floweringe1
- Qualifier
- root mean square error (RMSE) criterione1
- Comparator
- SOYGROe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Comparison of Two Phenology Models for Predicting Flowering and Maturity Date of Soybean”
e1“Based on the root mean square error (RMSE) criterion between predicted and observed dates, SOYGRO and CROPGRO predicted flowering equally well”
Claim · model-written summary
SOYGRO underpredicted the post-flowering development rate of soybean in cool environments, so maturity was predicted very late in some years.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Outcome
- Development rate after floweringe2
- Direction
- underpredictede2
- Setting
- cool environmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Comparison of Two Phenology Models for Predicting Flowering and Maturity Date of Soybean”
e2“Development rate after flowering was underpredicted by SOYGRO in cool environments so that in some years, maturity was predicted very late”
Claim · model-written summary
CROPGRO separate temperature function after beginning seedfill decreased the RMSE for maturity date prediction compared with SOYGRO, especially for early maturity cultivars.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- separate temperature function after beginning seedfille3
- Outcome
- RMSE for prediction of maturity datee3
- Direction
- decreasede3
- Qualifier
- especially for early maturity cultivarse3
- Comparator
- SOYGROe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Comparison of Two Phenology Models for Predicting Flowering and Maturity Date of Soybean”
e3“CROPGRO has a separate temperature function after beginning seedfill, which decreased the RMSE for prediction of maturity date compared with SOYGRO, especially for early maturity cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Allowing the critical short day length to increase after flowering consistently decreased the RMSE for beginning seedfill and maturity prediction in CROPGRO.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- Allowing the critical short day length to increase after flowering datee4
- Outcome
- RMSE for prediction of beginning seedfill and maturitye4
- Direction
- decreasede4
- Qualifier
- consistentlye4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Comparison of Two Phenology Models for Predicting Flowering and Maturity Date of Soybean”
e4“Allowing the critical short day length to increase after flowering date in the CROPGRO model consistently decreased the RMSE for prediction of beginning seedfill and maturity”
Claim · model-written summary
CROPGRO was superior to SOYGRO for prediction of soybean maturity date.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Outcome
- prediction of maturity datee5
- Direction
- superiore5
- Comparator
- SOYGROe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Comparison of Two Phenology Models for Predicting Flowering and Maturity Date of Soybean”
e5“CROPGRO was superior to SOYGRO for prediction of maturity date”
The same questions in other papers
stage · phenology · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →light · phenology · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.