Evaluating CERES-Maize Model Using Planting Dates and Nitrogen Fertilizer in Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during the 2013/2014 season to evaluate the performance of CERES-maize model in simulating the effect of date of planting, nitrogen fertilizer and root-zone soil water profile on growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) at the Field Research Station of the School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Zambia, Zambia (15°23.6859'S, 28°20.226'E; 1,261 m.a.s.l). The experimental design was a split plot with three replicates, three planting dates (November 24, December 8, and December 22) assigned to main plots and two nitrogen fertilizer rates (112 and 168 kg N ha-1) assigned to sub-plot. Phenological stages and aboveground biomass were used for model evaluation and these were observed at vegetative and reproductive stages. Soil water profiles were monitored using the Diviner 2000 Probe. Planting date significantly affected grain and biomass yield at P < 0.05. The coefficients of variation for grain and biomass yield were below 12% and considered efficient. The Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) programme was used to estimate the genetic coefficients for the CERES-maize model. The model’s prediction of plant emergence (±1 days), time to anthesis (>= -3 <= ±1 days) and maturity (>= -4 <= 6 days) was good. Simulation of biomass (RMSE = 1135 kg/ha, d = 0.96, EF = 0.86) was reasonably accurate while leaf area index (d = 0.54, EF = -0.65) was simulated with less accuracy due to poor d-stat and forecasting efficiency. The model’s simulation of grain yield was fair (NRMSE = 21.4%) while soil root water availability demonstrated that substantial potential yield may have been lost due to water stress. The results showed that the model can be used to accurately determine optimum planting date, biomass yield and nitrogen fertilizer rates with reasonable accuracy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".