How well do crop modeling groups predict wheat phenology, given calibration data from the target population?

Author:

Wallach Daniel,Palosuo Taru,Thorburn Peter,Gourdain Emmanuelle,Asseng Senthold,Basso Bruno,Buis Samuel,Crout Neil,Dibari Camilla,Dumont Benjamin,Ferrise Roberto,Gaiser Thomas,Garcia Cécile,Gayler Sebastian,Ghahramani Afshin,Hochman Zvi,Hoek Steven,Horan Heidi,Hoogenboom Gerrit,Huang Mingxia,Jabloun Mohamed,Jing Qi,Justes Eric,Kersebaum Kurt Christian,Klosterhalfen Anne,Launay Marie,Luo Qunying,Maestrini Bernardo,Mielenz Henrike,Moriondo Marco,Nariman Zadeh Hasti,Olesen Jørgen Eivind,Poyda Arne,Priesack Eckart,Pullens Johannes Wilhelmus Maria,Qian Budong,Schütze Niels,Shelia Vakhtang,Souissi Amir,Specka Xenia,Srivastava Amit Kumar,Stella Tommaso,Streck Thilo,Trombi Giacomo,Wallor Evelyn,Wang Jing,Weber Tobias K.D.,Weihermüller Lutz,de Wit Allard,Wöhling Thomas,Xiao Liujun,Zhao Chuang,Zhu Yan,Seidel Sabine J.

Abstract

ABSTRACTPredicting 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.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Cited by 8 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3