Biology subjects

Priesack, E.

Publications and source records attributed to Priesack, E..

4 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2020

The chaos in calibrating crop models

Calibration, the estimation of model parameters based on fitting the model to experimental data, is among the first steps in many applications of system models and has an important impact on simulated values. Here we propose and illustrate a novel method of developing guidelines for calibration of system models. Our example is calibration of the phenology component of crop models. The approach is based on a multi-model study, where all teams are provided with the same data and asked to return simulations for the same conditions. All teams are asked to document in detail their calibration approach, including choices with respect to criteria for best parameters, choice of parameters to estimate and software. Based on an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the various choices, we propose calibration recommendations that cover a comprehensive list of decisions and that are based on actual practices. HighlightsO_LIWe propose a new approach to deriving calibration recommendations for system models C_LIO_LIApproach is based on analyzing calibration in multi-model simulation exercises C_LIO_LIResulting recommendations are holistic and anchored in actual practice C_LIO_LIWe apply the approach to calibration of crop models used to simulate phenology C_LIO_LIRecommendations concern: objective function, parameters to estimate, software used C_LI

plant biology↗

bioRxiv2020

Multi-model evaluation of phenology prediction for wheat in Australia

Predicting wheat phenology is important for cultivar selection, for effective crop management and provides a baseline for evaluating the effects of global change. Evaluating how well crop phenology can be predicted is therefore of major interest. Twenty-eight wheat modeling groups participated in this evaluation. Our target population was wheat fields in the major wheat growing regions of Australia under current climatic conditions and with current local management practices. The environments used for calibration and for evaluation were both sampled from this same target population. The calibration and evaluation environments had neither sites nor years in common, so this is a rigorous evaluation of the ability of modeling groups to predict phenology for new sites and weather conditions. Mean absolute error (MAE) for the evaluation environments, averaged over predictions of three phenological stages and over modeling groups, was 9 days, with a range from 6 to 20 days. Predictions using the multi-modeling group mean and median had prediction errors nearly as small as the best modeling group. About two thirds of the modeling groups performed better than a simple but relevant benchmark, which predicts phenology by assuming a constant temperature sum for each development stage. The added complexity of crop models beyond just the effect of temperature was thus justified in most cases. There was substantial variability between modeling groups using the same model structure, which implies that model improvement could be achieved not only by improving model structure, but also by improving parameter values, and in particular by improving calibration techniques.

plant biology↗

bioRxiv2019

Call for participation: Collaborative benchmarking of functional-structural root architecture models. The case of root water uptake.

Three-dimensional models of root growth, architecture and function are becoming important tools that aid the design of agricultural management schemes and the selection of beneficial root traits. However, while benchmarking is common in many disciplines that use numerical models such as natural and engineering sciences, functional-structural root architecture models have never been systematically compared. The following reasons might induce disagreement between the simulation results of different models: different representation of root growth, sink term of root water and solute uptake and representation of the rhizosphere. Presently, the extent of discrepancies is unknown, and a framework for quantitatively comparing functional-structural root architecture models is required. We propose, in a first step, to define benchmarking scenarios that test individual components of complex models: root architecture, water flow in soil and water flow in roots. While the latter two will focus mainly on comparing numerical aspects, the root architectural models have to be compared at a conceptual level as they generally differ in process representation. Therefore defining common inputs that allow recreating reference root systems in all models will be a key challenge. In a second step, benchmarking scenarios for the coupled problems are defined. We expect that the results of step 1 will enable us to better interpret differences found in step 2. This benchmarking will result in a better understanding of the different models and contribute towards improving them. Improved models will allow us to simulate various scenarios with greater confidence and avoid bugs, numerical errors or conceptual misunderstandings. This work will set a standard for future model development.

plant biology↗

bioRxiv2019

How well do crop models predict phenology, with emphasis on the effect of calibration?

Predicting phenology is essential for adapting varieties to different environmental conditions and for crop management. Therefore, it is important to evaluate how well different crop modeling groups can predict phenology. Multiple evaluation studies have been previously published, but it is still difficult to generalize the findings from such studies since they often test some specific aspect of extrapolation to new conditions, or do not test on data that is truly independent of the data used for calibration. In this study, we analyzed the prediction of wheat phenology in Northern France under observed weather and current management, which is a problem of practical importance for wheat management. The results of 27 modeling groups are evaluated, where modeling group encompasses model structure, i.e. the model equations, the calibration method and the values of those parameters not affected by calibration. The data for calibration and evaluation are sampled from the same target population, thus extrapolation is limited. The calibration and evaluation data have neither year nor site in common, to guarantee rigorous evaluation of prediction for new weather and sites. The best modeling groups, and also the mean and median of the simulations, have a mean absolute error (MAE) of about 3 days, which is comparable to the measurement error. Almost all models do better than using average number of days or average sum of degree days to predict phenology. On the other hand, there are important differences between modeling groups, due to model structural differences and to differences between groups using the same model structure, which emphasizes that model structure alone does not completely determine prediction accuracy. In addition to providing information for our specific environments and varieties, these results are a useful contribution to a knowledge base of how well modeling groups can predict phenology, when provided with calibration data from the target population.

plant biology↗