ARTICLES

A Comparison of Two Peanut Growth Models for Oklahoma

Authors: G. D. Grosz , R. L. Elliott , J. H. Young

  • A Comparison of Two Peanut Growth Models for Oklahoma

    ARTICLES

    A Comparison of Two Peanut Growth Models for Oklahoma

    Authors: , ,

Abstract

Growth simulation models provide potential benefit in the study of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) production. Two physiologically-based peanut simulation models of varying complexity were adapted and calibrated to simulate the growth and yield of Spanish peanut under Oklahoma conditions. Field data, including soil moisture measurements and sequential yield samples, were collected at four sites during the 1985 growing season. An automated weather station provided the necessary climatic data for the models. PNUTMOD, the simpler model originally developed for educational purposes, requires seven varietal input parameters in addition to temperature and solar radiation data. The seven model parameters were calibrated using data from two of the four field sites, and model performance was evaluated using the remaining two data sets. The more complex model, PEANUT, simulates individual plant physiological processes and utilizes a considerably larger set of input parameters. Since PEANUT was developed for the Virginia type peanut, several input parameters required adjustment for the Spanish type peanut grown in Oklahoma. PEANUT was calibrated using data from all four study sites. Both models performed well in simulating pod yield. PNUTMOD, which does not allow for leaf senescence, did not perform as well as PEANUT in predicting vegetative growth.

Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature

Keywords: peanut, Arachis hypogaea L, growth model, Simulation, Spanish

How to Cite:

Grosz, G. & Elliott, R. & Young, J., (1988) “A Comparison of Two Peanut Growth Models for Oklahoma”, Peanut Science 15(1), p.30-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-15-1-9

8 Views

0 Downloads

Published on
01 Jan 1988
Peer Reviewed

Author Notes

1Journal Article No. 5206 of the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station and Paper No. 11190 of the Journal Series of the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Raleigh, NC 27695-7601. The use of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement by the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, or by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, of the products named, nor criticism of similar ones not mentioned. This study was supported by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, and by the National Science Foundation through a Graduate Fellowship for the senior author.