ABE6933/AGR 6932

Computer Simulation of Crop Growth and Management Responses

Final Term Project Report

“Parameterization and Testing TOMATO

CROPGRO Model for predictions of total dry
matter production, dry matter partitioning
Temperature effects

Raquel Rybak
• The general objective of this project is the
actualization of some genetic parameters
and a posterior evaluation of the Tomato
Crop model in relationship to the carbon
balance and growth simulated process.
 Systematic Procedure to Parameterize
“Species” Traits and Test Crop Models
• Published literature on process sensitivity to
– Cardinal temperatures
– Daylength
– Light
• Calibration with growth data: phenology, early DM
growth, yield.
– Solve for some parameters
• Test with independent field data (from diverse
environments)
– Determine RMSE, d-index, slope, intercept
Boote and Scholberg 2006
 Example: Growth Processes in
CROPGRO Dependent on Temperature
• V-stage (leaf appearance) rate
• R-stage progression
• Photosynthesis (leaf - L version)
– Electron transport rate
– Tmin effect on Asat
• Maintenance respiration
• Rate of root depth progression
• Leaf expansion & Internode length
• Fruit addition rate
• Fruit (pod) growth rate
• Seed growth rate
 Temperature Functions for Processes in CROPGRO are in Species
File (read-in file), use 4-point Cardinal Shapes with LIN or QDR
Parameter Description Tb oC Topt1oC Topt2oC Tmax oC Type

Canopy level This is a four

-point two
-sided generic curve
P hotosynthesis that describes daily canopy assimilation as a
FNP GT(4) function of average daytime temperature 3.00 22.0 34.0 45.0 LIN
Leaf level A six point lookup function that describes
P hotosynthesis relative rate of photosynthetic electron
XLM AXT(6) transport as a function of temperature. 8.00 40.0 -- -- LIN
Leaf level A four-point curve describing the next sday
P hotosynthesis single-leaf light-saturated photosynthesis rate
FN P GL(6) as a function of minimum night temperature. 0.00 19.0 -- -- QDR

N itrogen fixation Four point curve describing relative nodule

FN N GT(4) growth rate as a function of soil temperature.
7.00 22.0 35 44 LIN

N itrogen fixation Four point describing the relative -fixation

N
FN FXT(4) rate as a function of soil temperature. 5.00 20.00 35 44 LIN

Leaf growth Relative temperature effect on specific leaf

XSLATM (5) area of newly formed leaves. 12.0 22.0 -- -- LIN
YSLATM (5) 0.25* 1.00* -- --
P od set P od addition rate scaled to the optimum rate
FN P DT(4) as a function of air temperature. 14.0 21.0 26.5 40 QDR

Seed growth Single seed growth rate scaled to the

FN STDT(4) optimum rate as a function of air temperature
6.0 21 23.5 41 QDR
Table 1. Cardinal temperatures (°C): base (Tb), first optimum (Topt1), second
optimum (Topt2), and ceiling failure temperature (Tmax) for growth processes
from tomato literature. Rate is zero at Tb and Tmax, optimum between Topt1 and
Topt2 , assuming linear response between Tb to Topt1, and from Topt2 to Tmax.

Growth or development process Tb Topt1 Topt2 Tmax

Rate of leaf or truss appearance 7.0 22 <26 ---

Rate, progress to anthesis 7.2 22 <26 ---
Rate, fruit development & maturation 5.7 26 --- ---
Rate, fruit addition (and pollination) 7.2 22 <26 32?
Fruit growth rate 11 25 25 ---
Amax vs. instantaneous temperature 6-8 30 30 ---
Leaf relative expansion (SLA) 20 --- ---

Source: Boote and Scholberg 2006

 Phenology Parameters TMGRO040.SPE

TB TO1 TO2 Tmax

10 -7 28-22 28-26 55-48

10-7.2 28-22 28-26 55-48

10-5.7 28-26 28-26 55-48

 Seed and Shell Growth Parameters
TMGRO040.SPE
FNPDT 6 -7.2 8-22 28-25.5 30-32

FNSDT 6 21-22 25-25 32-32

xxFT 0 10 20 22 28 25 33 60
 Seed and Shell Growth Parameters
TMGRO040.SPE
FNPGT 5 27 22 34 33 48 45

FNPGL 0 -1 5 18 50 60

XLmaxT 0 5 25 28 34 48
7 26 30
Systematic Procedure to Parameterize
“Species” Traits and Test Crop Models
• Published literature on process sensitivity to
– Cardinal temperatures
– Daylength
– Light
• Calibration with growth data (phytotron, field)
– Order: phenology 1st , early DM growth, yield traits
– Solve for some parameters
• Test with independent field data (from diverse
environments)
– Determine RMSE, d-index, slope, intercept
Source BUNCE 2000 PSR
Figure 1. Carbon dioxide assimilation rate (A) as a function of substomatal
[CO2] (Ci ) at various temperatures for leaves of vulgare Lycopersicon esculentum grown at 25 C (B). Each
point represents a measurement on an individual leaf.

Source BUNCE 2000 PSR

Source BUNCE 2000 PSR
Source BUNCE 2000 PSR
Source BUNCE 2000 PSR
• Field Experiments used for step 2
• UFBR9201 A.I-AVGN. SUNNY
• UFBR9401 A.I-AVGN. SUNNY
• UFBR9502 A.I-AVGN. SUNNY
• UFGA9601 D.I-200N. AGRISET
• UFQU9501 D.I N-off. AGRISET

• Field Experiments will be used for step 3

• UFGA0601 D.I FL-47
• UFGA0701 DI Fl-47
Results of changes in temperature
functions in TMGR040.SPE
Experiment PD ORIGINAL A CH T ADJ # 2 LC
UFGA9601 Anthesis 44 23 41
UFGA9601 First Pod 54 37 54
UFGA9601 First Seed 66 49 68
UFGA9601 PH Maturity -99 -99 -99
UFGA9502 Anthesis 41 22 39
UFGA9502 First Pod 54 32 51
UFGA9502 First Seed 67 44 63
UFGA9502 PH Maturity -99 -99 -99
UFQU9501 Anthesis 40 22 39
UFQU9501 First Pod 50 32 50
UFQU9501 First Seed 62 44 69
UFQU9501 PH Maturity -99 -99 -99

AD LC # 2 in TMGR040.CUL
EM-FL 23 ---35 PODUR 42- 45
FL-SD 17--- 22 XFRT 0.75
FL-SH 8---9.5
SD----PM 50---54
Experiment PD ORIGINAL A CH T Adjusting LC
as an average

BR9502 Anthesis 31 16 30
BR9502 First Pod 42 25 41
BR9502 First Seed 53 34 54
BR9201 Anthesis 39 20 36
BR9201 First Pod 50 30 48
BR9201 First Seed 64 41 58
BR9201 PH Maturity 123 96 116
BR9401 Anthesis 34 20 34
BR9401 First Pod 45 28 44
BR9401 First Seed 56 39 57
BR9401 PH Maturity -99 92 -99

AD LC in TMGR040.CUL
EM-FL 23 ---35 PODUR 42- 44
FL-SD 17----22 XFRT 0.75-0.65
FL-SH 8---9.5
SD----PM 50---54
 U F B R 9 4 0 1 Y ie ld

14000

12000

10000

8000
DW kg/ha

6000

4000

2000

0
20 40 60 80 100 120
D a ys a ft e r P la n tin g
To p s w t k g / h a (o rig in a l) P o d w t k g / h a (o rig in a l) To p s w t k g / h a (n e w )
P o d w t k g /h a (n e w ) To p s w t k g /h a (U F B R 9 4 0 1 TM T) TR
P oT d4 w t k g / h a (U F B R 9 4 0 1 TM T) TR T 4
To p s w t k g / h a (U F B R 9 4 0 1 TM T) TR
P oT d4 w t k g / h a (U F B R 9 4 0 1 TM T) TR T 4
 Statistics
M ean S td .D e v .
V a r ia b le N a m e O b s e Sr vim e du la
R atetio
d O b s e Sr vim
e du la
r -SteqduMa reea nMDeiff.
a nRAMbSs E.D
d -S
iff.ta t.
T o p s w t kg /h a ( R u n3 71 4) 3 3 3 8 7 1 .2 6 1 4 4 8 1 4 0 4 8 0 .9 9 -3 5 7 3 7 7 7 0 8 .10 .9 9 3
P o d w t k g /h a ( R u n317)5 1 3 4 4 8 0 .8 0 1 3 0 6 9 2 6 3 9 0 .9 8 4 -3 0 3 4 0 7 6 3 8 0 .9 8 7
T o p s w t kg /h a ( R u n3 72 4) 3 4 0 4 9 2 .1 0 8 4 4 8 1 4 5 3 7 0 .9 8 8 3 0 5 3 8 9 5 8 4 .30 .9 9 6
P o d w t k g /h a ( R u n 32 7) 5 1 3 8 4 7 0 .9 1 1 3 0 6 9 2 8 7 6 0 .9 8 2 9 6 3 9 2 4 5 6 .10 .9 9 4

M ean S t d .D e v .
V a r ia b le N a mO eb s eS rimv euRdlaa t ioO
e d b s eS rimv eurd-laS tqe Mud ae raeMn eD aifRnf .MA SbdsE-.D
S tifa ft.
S L A c m 2 /g ( 2R6u5n.631 0) 2 .31 .1 8 54 9 .53 4 .1 90 .0 0 33 6 .8 6 3 .17 1 .8 50 .3 7
S L A c m 2 /g ( R2 6u n5 .62 )9 5 .41 .1 6 4 9 .53 0 .3 80 .0 1 2 9 .9 5 9 .46 7 .5 50 .3 6 1
 U F B R 9 1 0 1 S LA

450

400

350

300

250
SLA cm2/g

200

150

100

50

0
20 40 60 80 100 120
D a ys a fte r P la n tin g
S L A c m 2 /g (o rig in a l)S L A c m 2 /g (n e w ) S L A c m 2 /g (U F B R 9 4 0 1 T M T ) T SR LTA4 c m 2 /g (U F B R 9 4 0 1 T M T ) T R T 4
 G A 9 6 0 1 T o m a to Y ie ld
8000

7000

6000

5000
DW kg/ha

4000

3000

2000

1000

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
D a ys a fte r P la n tin g

T o p s w t k g /ha (o rig ina l) P o d w t k g /ha (o rig i na l) T o p s w t k g /ha (ne w )

P o d w t k g /ha (ne w ) T o p s w t k g /ha (U F G A 9 6 0 1 T M T ) TPRoTd 1w3t k g /ha (U F G A 9 6 0 1 T M T ) T
T o p s w t k g /ha (U F G A 9 6 0 1 T M T ) TPRoTd 1w3t k g /ha (U F G A 9 6 0 1 T M T ) T R T 1 3
 U F G A9 6 0 1 TO M ATO LAI

3 .5

2 .5
Lai index

1 .5

0 .5

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
D a ys a fte r P la n tin g

L AI (o rig in a l) L AI (n e w ) L AI (U F G A9 6 0 1 T MT ) T R T 1L 3AI (U F G A9 6 0 1 T M T ) T R T 1 3
V a r ia b le N a m e
T o p s w t k g /h a
 U F Q U 9 5 0 1 T O M A T O Y ie ld

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000
DW kg/ha

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
D a ys a fte r P la n tin g

T o p s w t k g /h a ( o r ig in a l) P o d w t k g /h a ( o r ig in a l) T o p s w t k g /h a ( n e w )
P o d w t k g /h a ( n e w ) T o p s w t k g /h a ( U F Q U 9 5 0 1 T M T ) TPRoTd 3w t k g /h a (UF Q U9 5 0 1 T M T ) T R T
T o p s w t k g /h a ( U F Q U 9 5 0 1 T M T ) TPRoTd 3w t k g /h a (UF Q U9 5 0 1 T M T ) T R T 3
 U F Q U 9 5 0 1 T O M AT O L AI

4
Lai index

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
D a ys a fte r P la n tin g

L A I (o rig in a l) L A I (n e w) LAI (UF Q U9 5 0 1 T M T ) T RLTA I3 (UF Q U9 5 0 1 T M T ) T R T 3

V a r ia b le N
M e a n S td .D e v .
V a r i a b l eO Nb asSme i mrevRue aldat iOtoe bd sS e i mr vrue- Slda qMt eu eda aMr ne e DaR ni Mf f A. Sd b-ESs .t Da ti f. f .
L A I ( R u 2n . 21 52) . 6 07 . 9 31 3. 3 21 8. 9 70 2. 8 4 02 . 4 20 . 8 18 . 0 10 3. 9 0 5
L A I ( R u n2 .22 )53 . 1 16 . 4 91 1. 3 2 18 . 8 05 . 9 9 08 . 9 10 . 9 1 . 0 50 2. 8 9 9
 Conclusions
The changes of cardinal temperatures affecting Tomato phenology and after
calibration of cultivar coefficients produced stables simulations compared
with simulations which were finely calibrated with field data in the past.

The cardinal temperatures should be changed according more specific

requirements of tomato.

The quality of simulations should be evaluated with independent data set.

Simulations different than potential production need be tested in similar way.

Other processes with temperature dependence in species file need be revised

as well.

Factors in species files different than temperature and which an impact in C

balance is expected need be updated (i.e Ps dependence of leaf N [ ],
construction costs (Tissues composition)
 Tomato tissues compositions in others sources
Percentages values

Protein Lipids Lignin Structural Non Structural Organic Minerals

Carbohydra. Carbohydra. Acid

Stem 0.1 0.02 0.1 0.4 0.22 0.085 0.085

Leaves 0.24 0.03 0.03 0.2 0.3 0.09 0.11

Roots 0.1 0.01 0.03 0.3 0.3 0.07 0.03

Seed 0.18 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.60 - 0.05

Flesh 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.62 0.04 0.12

Average values for 24 herbaceous species including tomato (Poorter and

Villar, 1997 )
Niemann data study for Tomatoes tissues composition (1993)
Percentages values
 Tomato tissues compositions in TMGRO040.SPE
Percentages values

Protein Lipids Lignin Carbohydrates Organic Acid Minerals

Leaves 0.370 0.025 0.070 0.430 0.050 0.094

Stem 0.256 0.020 0.070 0.674 0.050 0.046

Roots 0.144 0.020 0.070 0.641 0.050 0.057

Seed 0.21 0.050 0.020 0.125 0.040 0.025

Flesh 0.15 0.020 0.280 0.442 0.040 0.030

 Ash in Tomato Dry tissues
(Clark, PF, 1936)
Leaves Stems
Solution
Nitrate 17.2 % 20.7 %
Concentrated 12.7 % 14 %
Ammonium
Diluted ammonium 13.8 % 14.2 %

Moyano (2007), determined the percentages of gross protein, lipids, fiber, lignin and
ash from tomato residues (stem + leaves) founding the following results

Tissues Protein Fiber Lipids Lignin Ash

Stems plus 0.1126 0.6707 0.019 0.0354 0.1623

leaves

Source: Moyano 2007

http://www.fiapa.es
 Composition of ripe tomato fruit (all values in g per 100 g DM)

Carbohyd. Proteins Lipids Lignin Org. Min.

Source Acids
Penning de Vries et al., 54a 17 4 9b 8c 8
1983 (51 a-57a) (16-18) (2-6)
Gijzen, 1994 55.0 a 12.7 1.3 2.7 b 6.0 d 25.3
68.4 a 11.3 1.3 3.0 b 3.9 d 19.5
Souci et al., 1986 NA 10.5-20.8 3-6.3 1.2-3.9 b NA 9.1-12.7

Favier et al., 1995 NA 12.9 4.8 1.9 b Na 4.4 e

Davies and Hobson, 1981 65 10 2 NA 13 8

Reprinted from Gary et al 1998

NA, not available
a estimated as 100 % minus the sum of the others components
b estimated as 10 % of the fiber content
c estimated as equal the mineral content
d estimated from the ash alkalinity an nitrate content
e estimated as the sum of Na, Mg, P, K, Ca, and Fe content.
Thanks !