Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2014.07.042
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of methods for estimation of chilling and heat requirements of nectarine and peach genotypes for flowering

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
11
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
(30 reference statements)
2
11
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For the chill phase, we used the Dynamic Model because of the higher credibility of projections with this model (Luedeling et al, 2011;Darbyshire et al, 2013). Some other models also perform reasonably well (Luedeling et al, 2011) -or even better in non Mediterranean areas (Maulión et al, 2014) -in reproducing observed flowering patterns, but their suitability for climate change projections has been questioned (Luedeling, 2012). Although Darbyshire et al (2013Darbyshire et al ( , 2014,) suggested that the sequential modeling may need improvement, especially in the context of climate projections, and they advocated for more field and laboratory work to validate and define in a better way both chilling and forcing procedures, they also noted that the sequential model composed by the Dynamic chilling model and GDH growth model dominated the best performing models across all the data series in their study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the chill phase, we used the Dynamic Model because of the higher credibility of projections with this model (Luedeling et al, 2011;Darbyshire et al, 2013). Some other models also perform reasonably well (Luedeling et al, 2011) -or even better in non Mediterranean areas (Maulión et al, 2014) -in reproducing observed flowering patterns, but their suitability for climate change projections has been questioned (Luedeling, 2012). Although Darbyshire et al (2013Darbyshire et al ( , 2014,) suggested that the sequential modeling may need improvement, especially in the context of climate projections, and they advocated for more field and laboratory work to validate and define in a better way both chilling and forcing procedures, they also noted that the sequential model composed by the Dynamic chilling model and GDH growth model dominated the best performing models across all the data series in their study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the Low Chill model the mean was 1453 CU for these 11 years. In a study comparing models of cold accumulation, Maulión et al (2014) indicated that the coefficient of variation allows a comparison between the models, assuming that the model most appropriate for a given region should reflect the climatic conditions that occur, with less variation between years and an ability to predict more safely the amount of cold accumulated. The authors tested four models (Chilling Hours, Utah, Positive Utah and Dynamic model), concluding that the most suitable ones were the Chilling Hours (≤7.2°C) and positive Utah models.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Essa variabilidade é inerente a variação anual da temperatura do ar, além da atuação dos sistemas meteorológicos predominantes na região, principalmente a entrada de frentes frias, as quais adentram no sul do estado e causam queda brusca nas temperaturas (COSTA; ANDRADE, 2015;FRITZSONS et al, 2008). No entanto, a variabilidade interanual do somatório de frio é prejudicial ao estabelecimento das frutíferas de clima temperado, dificultando a escolha das cultivares para cada região; nos anos de menor acúmulo de frio a brotação e o florescimento podem ser prejudicados e, consequentemente, pode ocorrer redução na produtividade (TANASIJEVIC et al, 2014) e dificuldade de escolha das cultivares com melhor adaptação (MORAIS;CARBONIERI, 2015;MAULIÓN et al, 2014 Médias seguidas pela mesma letra minúscula na linha, não diferem pelo teste Tukey a 5%.…”
Section: Resultsunclassified