Theoretical and Applied Climatology

, Volume 102, Issue 3–4, pp 429–438 | Cite as

An integrated evaluation of thirteen modelling solutions for the generation of hourly values of air relative humidity

  • Simone Bregaglio
  • Marcello Donatelli
  • Roberto Confalonieri
  • Marco Acutis
  • Simone Orlandini
Original Paper


The availability of hourly air relative humidity (HARH) data is a key requirement for the estimation of epidemic dynamics of plant fungal pathogens, in particular for the simulation of both the germination of the spores and the infection process. Most of the existing epidemic forecasting models require these data as input directly or indirectly, in the latter case for the estimation of leaf wetness duration. In many cases, HARH must be generated because it is not available in historical series and when there is the need to simulate epidemics either on a wide scale or with different climate scenarios. Thirteen modelling solutions (MS) for the generation of this variable were evaluated, with different input requirements and alternative approaches, on a large dataset including several sites and years. A composite indicator was developed using fuzzy logic to compare and to evaluate the performances of the models. The indicator consists of four modules: Accuracy, Correlation, Pattern and Robustness. Results showed that when available, daily maximum and minimum air relative humidity data substantially improved the estimation of HARH. When such data are not available, the choice of the MS is crucial, given the difference in predicting skills obtained during the analysis, which allowed a clear detection of the best performing MS. This study represents the first step of the creation of a robust modelling chain coupling the MS for the generation of HARH and disease forecasting models, including the systematic validation of each step of the simulation.


Modelling Solution Composite Indicator Fuzzy Subset Leaf Wetness Pattern Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Addiscott TM, Whitmore AP (1987) Computer simulation of changes in soil mineral nitrogen and crop nitrogen during autumn, winter and spring. J Agr Sci 109:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrig Drain 56, 300 pp. UN-FAO, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  3. Arneson PA, Oren TR, Loria R, Jenkins JJ, Goodman ED, Cooper WE (1979) APPLESCAB: a pest management game. Nacta J 23:61–62Google Scholar
  4. ASAE Standards (1998) EP406.2: heating, cooling, and ventilating greenhouses. St. Joseph, MI, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Bekele D, Srinivasan R, Yves Parlange J (2007) Accuracy evaluation of weather data generation and disaggregation methods at finer timescales. Adv Water Resour 30:1286–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellocchi G, Acutis M, Fila G, Donatelli M (2002) An indicator of solar radiation model performance based on a fuzzy expert system. Agron J 94:1222–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellocchi G, Rivington M, Donatelli M, Matthews K (2010) Validation of biophysical models: issues and methodologies. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 30:109–130. doi: 10.1051/agro/2009001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell GS (1985) Soil physics with BASIC: transport models for soil–plant systems. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Confalonieri R (2009) The AGRI4CAST tools: the BioMA application. CGMS Experts Meeting, March 18–19, JRC, Ispra, Italy.
  10. Confalonieri R, Acutis M, Bellocchi G, Donatelli M (2009) Multi-metric evaluation of the models WARM, CropSyst, and WOFOST for rice. Ecol Model 220:1395–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Confalonieri R, Bregaglio S, Acutis M (2010) A proposal of an indicator for quantifying model robustness based on the relationship between variability of errors and of explored conditions. Ecol Model 221:960–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook RD, Weisberg S (1982) Residuals and influence in regression. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Danuso F (2002) CLIMAK: a stochastic model for weather data generation. Ital J Agron 6:57–71Google Scholar
  14. Donatelli M, Acutis M, Bellocchi G, Fila G (2004) New indices to quantify patterns of residuals produced by model estimates. Agron J 96:631–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donatelli M, Bellocchi G, Carlini L (2006) Sharing knowledge via software components: models on reference evapotranspiration. Eur J Agron 24:186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donatelli M, Bellocchi G, Habyarimana E, Bregaglio S, Confalonieri R, Baruth B (2009) CLIMA, a modular weather generator. In: Anderssen RS, Braddock RD, Newham LTH (eds) 18th World IMACS Congress and MODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand and International Association for Mathematics and Computers in Simulation. July 2009, pp 852–858. ISBN: 978-0-9758400-7-8.
  17. Donatelli M, Bellocchi G, Habyarimana E, Bregaglio S, Baruth B (2010) AirTemperature: extensible software library to generate air temperature data. SRX Computer Science (in press)Google Scholar
  18. Draper NR, Smith H (1998) Applied regression analysis, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Dyer JA, Brown DM (1977) A climatic simulator for field-drying hay. Agr Meteorol 18:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ephrath JE, Goudriaan J, Marani A (1996) Modelling diurnal patterns of air temperatures, radiation, wind speed and relative humidity by equations for daily characteristics. Agr Syst 51:377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fox DG (1981) Judging air quality model performance: a summary of the AMS workshop on dispersion models performance. B Am Meteorol Soc 62:599–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Friesland H, Schrödter H (1988) The analysis of weather factors in epidemiology. In: Kranz J, Rotem J (eds) Experimental techniques in plant disease epidemiology. Springer, Berlin, pp 115–134Google Scholar
  23. Glassy JM, Running SW (1994) Validating diurnal climatology logic of the MT-CLIM model across a climatic gradient in Oregon. Ecol Appl 4:248–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gutsche V, Kluge E (1996) The epidemic models for Phytophthora infestans and Pseudocercosporella herpotricoides and their regional adaptation in Germany. OEPP/EPPO Bull 26:441–446Google Scholar
  25. Hadders J (1997) Experience with a late blight DSS (Plant-Plus) in a starch potato area of the Netherlands in 1995 and 1996. In: Bouma E, Schepers H (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop on the European Network for the Development of an Integrated Control Strategy for Potato Late Blight. PAV-Special Report No. 1, pp 117–122Google Scholar
  26. Hansen JGB, Anderson B, Hermansen A (1995) NegFry—a system for scheduling chemical control of late blight in potatoes. In: Dowley LJ, Bannon E, Cooke LR, Keane T, O’Sullivan E (eds) Phytophthora infestans 150. European Association for Potato Research, Teagasc, Oak Park, Carlow, pp 201–208Google Scholar
  27. Hubbard KG, Mahmood R, Carlson C (2003) Estimating daily dew point temperature for the Northern Great Plains using maximum and minimum temperature. Agron J 95:323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huber L, Gillespie TJ (1992) Modelling leaf wetness in relation to plant disease epidemiology. Annu Rev Phytopathol 30:553–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson GL, Hanson CL, Hardegree SP, Ballard EB (1996) Stochastic weather simulation: overview and analysis of two commonly used models. J Appl Meteorol 35:1878–1896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim KS, Taylor SE, Gleason ML, Koehler KJ (2002) Model to enhance site-specific estimation of leaf wetness duration. Plant Dis 86:179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Laurence H, Fabry F, Dutilleul P, Bourgeois G, Zawadazki I (2002) Estimation of the spatial pattern of surface relative humidity using ground based radar measurements and its application to disease risk assessment. Agr Forest Meteorol 111:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liao TW (2002) A fuzzy C-medians variant for the generation of fuzzy term sets. Int J Intell Syst 17:21–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Linacre E (1992) Climate data and resources: a reference and guide. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Loague K, Green RE (1991) Statistical and graphical methods for evaluating solute transport models: overview and application. J Contam Hydrol 7:51–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Magarey RD, Sutton TB, Thayer CL (2005) A simple generic infection model for foliar fungal plant pathogens. Phytopathology 95:92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Magarey RD, Russo JM, Seem RC (2006) Simulation of surface wetness with a water budget and energy balance approach. Agr Forest Meteorol 139:373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Micale F, Genovese G (2004) Methodology of the MARS crop yield forecasting system, vol 1. Meteorological data collection, processing and analysis. Publications Office: European Communities, Italy, 100 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. Nicks AD, Gander GA (1994) Cligen: a weather generator for climate inputs to water resources and other models. 5th International Conference on Computer in Agriculture, Orlando, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. Nugtern W (1997) ProPhy, a complete advice system for potato late blight control. In: Bouma E, Schepers H (eds) PAV-Special Report No. 1, pp 106–113Google Scholar
  40. Priestley CHB, Taylor RJ (1972) On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters. Mon Weather Rev 100:81–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Richardson CW, Wright DA (1984) WGEN: a model for generating daily weather variables. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, ARS-8, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. Running SW, Nemani RR, Hungerford RD (1987) Extrapolation of synoptic meteorological data in mountainous terrain, and its use for simulating forest evapotranspiration. Can J Forest Res 17:472–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sentelhas PC, Gillespie TJ, Gleason ML, Monteiro J, Pezzopane J, Pedro MJ (2006) Evaluation of a Penman–Monteith approach to provide “reference” and crop canopy leaf wetness duration estimates. Agr Forest Meteorol 141:105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Silvestri N, Fila G, Bellocchi G, Bonari E (2006) An indicator to evaluate the environmental impact of olive oil waste water’s shedding on cultivated fields. Ital J Agron 1:243–257Google Scholar
  45. Smith P, Smith JU, Powlson DS, McGill WB, Arah JRM, Chertov OG, Coleman K, Franko U, Frolking S, Jenkinson DS, Jensen LS, Kelly RH, Klein-Gunnewiek F, Komarov AS, Li C, Molina JAE, Mueller T, Parton WJ, Thornley JHM, Whitmore AP (1997) A comparison of the performance of nine soil organic matter models using datasets from seven long-term experiments. Geoderma 81:153–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stöckle CO, Nelson RL, Donatelli M, Castellvì F (2001) ClimGen: a flexible weather generation program. 2nd ISMCS, Florence, Italy, pp 229–230Google Scholar
  47. Sugeno M (1985) An introductory survey of fuzzy control. Inform Sci 36:59–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sutton JC, Gillespie TJ, Hildebrand PD (1984) Monitoring weather factors in relation to plant disease. Plant Dis 68:78–84Google Scholar
  49. SWAT (2000) SWAT’s user manual.
  50. Waichler SR, Wigmosta MS (2003) Development of hourly meteorological values from daily data and significance to hydrological modelling at HJ Andrews Experimental Forest. J Hydrometeorol 4:251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wichink Kruit RJ, van Pul WAJ, Jacobs AFG, Heusinkveld BG (2004) Comparison between four methods to estimate leaf wetness duration caused by dew on Grassland. In: Spittlehouse D, Myers T (eds) 26th Conference on Agricultural and Forest Meteorology (26AG). 10.1. American Meteorological Society, BostonGoogle Scholar
  52. Yang J, Greenwood DJ, Rowell DL, Wadsworth GA, Burns IG (2000) Statistical methods for evaluating a crop nitrogen simulation model, N_ABLE. Agr Syst 64:37–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simone Bregaglio
    • 1
    • 3
  • Marcello Donatelli
    • 2
    • 3
  • Roberto Confalonieri
    • 1
  • Marco Acutis
    • 1
  • Simone Orlandini
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Crop ScienceUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  2. 2.European Commission Directorate General Joint Research CentreInstitute for Security and Protection of the CitizenIspra (VA)Italy
  3. 3.Agriculture Research CouncilResearch Centre for Industrial CropsBolognaItaly
  4. 4.Department of Agronomy and Land ManagementUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations