ORYZA2000v2n14s1 subversion developed for Rice Climate Change study for Africa.
Supporting material for the following scientific publication:
ORYZA2000v2n13 subversions developed for Improved Climate Risk Simulations for Rice in Arid Environments.
Supporting material for the following scientific publication:
The ORYZA2000v2n13 model is fully documented in a book and website, see the references below
- Bouman BAM, Kropff MJ, Tuong TP, Wopereis MCS, ten Berge HFM, van Laar HH. 2001. ORYZA2000: modeling lowland rice. Los Baños (Philippines): International Rice Research Institute, and Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research Centre. 235 p.
- IRRI ORYZA2000 website
The "ORYZA2000" family. A recent history.
The ORYZA2000 model originates from the Wageningen SUCROS model. Since the publication of the ORYZA200 book (Bouman et al., 2001) a number of important updates have been made. The last major update of open source code is version 2 number 13 (v2n13). Since then there have been at least four major developments:
- Version 3 (ORYZA2000v3) with many improvements has been released by IRRI. See Tao Li et al. (2017) for a recent overview.
- The physiology part of ORYZA2000 (the Bouman et al 2001 version, not the later v3 version) has been integrated in APSIM (= ORYZA2000 crop growing on an APSIM soil). This version can be downloaded from the APSIM website. See Gaydon et al. (2015) for a recent overview of APSIM-ORYZA.
- An improved rice phenology calibration program was developed (van Oort et al. 2011).
- New heat and cold sterility subroutines were developed, incorporated into version v2n13, resulting in a family of model subversion v2n13s1 to v2n13s26. These different subsversions were systematically tested and compare for two sites in Senegal (van Oort et al. 2015).
- A few more improvements were implemented in a later version ORYZA2000v2n14s1 used in a recent study on impacts of climate change on rice in Africa (van Oort et al, 2017).
The reason why these different model branches have emerged is mostly due to differences in opinion on whether source code should be open or not. Further improvements are still needed, all papers cited above highlight both the qualities and the remaining uncertainties in the different model versions.