4.0 Article

CALIBRATION OF THE CENTURY, APSIM AND NDICEA MODELS OF DECOMPOSITION AND N MINERALIZATION OF PLANT RESIDUES IN THE HUMID TROPICS

Journal

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 917-928

Publisher

SOC BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-06832011000300026

Keywords

legumes; nutrient cycling; organic farming; plant production

Categories

Funding

  1. CAPES (Brazilian Federal Agency)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to calibrate the CENTURY, APSIM and NDICEA simulation models for estimating decomposition and N mineralization rates of plant organic materials (Arachis pintoi, Calopogonium mucunoides, Stizolobium aterrimum, Stylosanthes guyanensis) for 360 clays in the Atlantic rainforest bioma of Brazil. The models' default settings overestimated the decomposition and N-mineralization of plant residues, underlining the fact that the models must be calibrated for use under tropical conditions. For example, the APSIM model simulated the decomposition of the Stizolobium aterrimum and Calopogonium mucunoides residues with an error rate of 37.62 and 48.23 %, respectively, by comparison with the observed data, and was the least accurate model in the absence of calibration. At the default settings, the NDICEA model produced an error rate of 10.46 and 14.46 % and the CENTURY model, 21.42 and 31.84 %, respectively, for Stizolobium aterrimum and Calopogonium mucunoides residue decomposition. After calibration, the models showed a :high level of accuracy in estimating decomposition and N- mineralization, with an error rate of less than 20 %. The calibrated NDICEA model showed the highest level of accuracy, followed by the APSIM and CENTURY. All models performed poorly in the first few months of decomposition and N-mineralization, indicating the need of an additional parameter for initial microorganism growth on the residues that would take the effect of leaching clue to rainfall into account.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available