HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Skinner, R. H. Articles by Gilmanov, T. G. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Skinner, R. H. Articles by Gilmanov, T. G. Agricola Articles by Skinner, R. H. Articles by Gilmanov, T. G. Related Collections Crop Physiology & Metabolism Other Forage Crops Crop Models

MODELING

Simulating Gross Primary Productivity of Humid-Temperate Pastures

^a USDA-ARS, Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Lab., Bldg. 3702 Curtin Rd., University Park, PA 16802
^b INRA, Agrocampus Rennes, UMR 1069, Sol, Agro- et hydro-systèmes, Spatialisation, F-35000 Rennes, France
^c Dep. of Biology and Microbiology, AgH 310, P.O. Box 2207B, South Dakota State Univ., Brookings, SD 57007

^* Corresponding author (howard.skinner{at}ars.usda.gov).

Although most pasture growth models simulate many above- and belowground components of the plant community, calibration and validation are usually based only on periodic measurements of aboveground forage yield. This research used daily measurements of gross primary productivity (GPP) to validate the photosynthesis subroutine of the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM). The model was calibrated for a pasture grazed by beef cattle (Bos taurus) in 2003, then validated with data from 2004 through 2006. Predicted and observed annual yield differed by 14 ± 9%, whereas predicted GPP differed from observed GPP by only 7 ± 3%. Seasonal trends in GPP were also adequately simulated, although a slight overestimation in the spring and early-summer and underestimation in the later half of the year occurred. Overestimation occurred when wintertime temperatures were above freezing or when N availability was high following fertilizer application. Late-season underestimation was related to low soil N availability which resulted from excessive N uptake by plants earlier in the year. Only minor adjustments in model structure were needed to improve simulation of GPP. Most adjustments involved changes in parameter values, many of which are often difficult to find or lacking in the literature. Refinement of models to accurately simulate the seasonal distribution of physiological parameters such as GPP will help ensure that model structures correctly represent the true dynamics of C assimilation and pasture growth.

Abbreviations: IFSM, Integrated Farm System Model • GPP, gross primary productivity • SPUR, Simulation of Production and Utilization of Rangelands Model

All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

¹ Mention of a specific brand name is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the USDA-ARS at the exclusion of other appropriate sources.

Received for publication August 4, 2007.