Engineering topics

Leduc, S.

Publications and source records attributed to Leduc, S..

5 records

NASA NTRS1985

Estimating solar radiation for plant simulation models

Five algorithms producing daily solar radiation surrogates using daily temperatures and rainfall were evaluated using measured solar radiation data for seven U.S. locations. The algorithms were compared both in terms of accuracy of daily solar radiation estimates and terms of response when used in a plant growth simulation model (CERES-wheat). Requirements for accuracy of solar radiation for plant growth simulation models are discussed. One algorithm is recommended as being best suited for use in these models when neither measured nor satellite estimated solar radiation values are available.

Hodges, T.↗

NASA NTRS1982

Crop weather models of corn and soybeans for Agrophysical Units (APU's) in Iowa using monthly meteorological predictors

Models based on multiple regression were developed to estimate corn and soybean yield from weather data for agrophysical units (APU) in Iowa. The predictor variables are derived from monthly average temperature and monthly total precipitation data at meteorological stations in the cooperative network. The models are similar in form to the previous models developed for crop reporting districts (CRD). The trends and derived variables were the same and the approach to select the significant predictors was similar to that used in developing the CRD models. The APU's were selected to be more homogeneous with respect crop to production than the CRDs. The APU models are quite similar to the CRD models, similar explained variation and number of predictor variables. The APU models are to be independently evaluated and compared to the previously evaluated CRD models. That comparison should indicate the preferred model area for this application, i.e., APU or CRD.

Leduc, S.↗

NASA NTRS1982

Crop weather models of barley and spring wheat yield for agrophysical units in North Dakota

Models based on multiple regression were developed to estimate barley yield and spring wheat yield from weather data for Agrophysical units(APU) in North Dakota. The predictor variables are derived from monthly average temperature and monthly total precipitation data at meteorological stations in the cooperative network. The models are similar in form to the previous models developed for Crop Reporting Districts (CRD). The trends and derived variables were the same and the approach to select the significant predictors was similar to that used in developing the CRD models. The APU models show sight improvements in some of the statistics of the models, e.g., explained variation. These models are to be independently evaluated and compared to the previously evaluated CRD models. The comparison will indicate the preferred model area for this application, i.e., APU or CRD.

Leduc, S.↗

NASA NTRS1982

Comparison of the CEAS and Williams-type barley yield models for North Dakota and Minnesota

The CEAS and Williams type models were compared based on specified selection criteria which includes a ten year bootstrap test (1970-1979). Based on this, the models were quite comparable; however, the CEAS model was slightly better overall. The Williams type model seemed better for the 1974 estimates. Because that year spring wheat yield was particularly low, the Williams type model should not be excluded from further consideration.

Leduc, S.↗

NASA NTRS1982

Evaluation of the Williams-type spring wheat model in North Dakota and Minnesota

The Williams type model, developed similarly to previous models of C.V.D. Williams, uses monthly temperature and precipitation data as well as soil and topological variables to predict the yield of the spring wheat crop. The models are statistically developed using the regression technique. Eight model characteristics are examined in the evaluation of the model. Evaluation is at the crop reporting district level, the state level and for the entire region. A ten year bootstrap test was the basis of the statistical evaluation. The accuracy and current indication of modeled yield reliability could show improvement. There is great variability in the bias measured over the districts, but there is a slight overall positive bias. The model estimates for the east central crop reporting district in Minnesota are not accurate. The estimate of yield for 1974 were inaccurate for all of the models.

Leduc, S.↗