How Much Complexity Is Required for Modelling Grassland Production at Regional Scales?

Abstract

Studies evaluating the complexity of models, which are suitable to simulate grass growth at regional scales in intensive grassland production systems are scarce. Therefore, two different grass growth models (GrasProg1.0 and APSIM) with different complexity and input requirements were compared against long-term observations from variety trials with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) in Germany and Denmark. The trial sites covered a large range of environmental conditions, with annual average temperatures ranging from 5.9 to 10.3 °C, and annual rainfall from 536 to 1154 mm. The sites also varied regarding soil type, which were for modelling categorised into three different groups according to their plant available water (PAW) content: light soils with a PAW of 60 mm, medium soils with a PAW of 80 mm, and heavy soils with a PAW of 100 mm. The objective was to investigate whether the simple model performed equally well with the given low number of inputs, namely climate and PAW group. Evaluation statistics showed that both models provided satisfactory results, with root mean square errors for individual cuts ranging from 0.59 to 1.28 t dry matter ha−1. The model efficiency (Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency) for the separate cuts were also good for both models, with 81% of the sites having a positive Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency value with GrasProg1.0, and 72% with APSIM. These results reveal that without detailed site-specific descriptions, the less complex GrasProg1.0 model can be incorporated into a simple decision support tool for optimising grassland management in intensive livestock production systems.

Predictive Production Models for Mountain Meadows: A Review

“…WOFOST and CROPSYST were used with similar results [29]. APIM was compared with GrassProg1, a simpler model for grasses, with no significant difference [110]. Biome-GCG and PaSIM were compared, and the only significant difference was that PaSIM estimated better evapotranspiration [97].…”