Back

The chaos in calibrating crop models

Wallach, D.; Palosuo, T.; Thorburn, P.; Hochman, Z.; Gourdain, E.; Andrianasolo, F.; Asseng, S.; Basso, B.; Buis, S.; Crout, N.; Dibari, C.; Dumont, B.; Ferrise, R.; Gaiser, T.; Garcia, C.; Gayler, S.; Ghahramani, A.; Hiremath, S.; Hoek, S.; Horan, H.; Hoogenboom, G.; Huang, M.; Jabloun, M.; Jansson, P.-E.; Jing, Q.; Justes, E.; Kersebaum, K. C.; Klosterhalfen, A.; Launay, M.; Lewan, E.; Luo, Q.; Maestrini, B.; Mielenz, H.; Moriondo, M.; Nariman Zadeh, H.; Padovan, G.; Olesen, J. E.; Poyda, A.; Priesack, E.; Pullens, J. W. M.; Qian, B.; Schuetze, N.; Shelia, V.; Souissi, A.; Specka, X.; Srivas

2020-09-14 plant biology
10.1101/2020.09.12.294744 bioRxiv
Show abstract

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

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
in silico Plants
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
31.2%
2
Frontiers in Plant Science
256 papers in training set
Top 2%
5.2%
3
The Plant Phenome Journal
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
4
Crop Science
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.4%
6
Plant Direct
95 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Quantitative Plant Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
8
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
9
Theoretical and Applied Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
10
Journal of Experimental Botany
219 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
Applications in Plant Sciences
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
12
Plant Physiology
238 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
252 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
14
New Phytologist
346 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
15
Plant, Cell & Environment
78 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
16
AoB PLANTS
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
17
Plant Phenomics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
18
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
19
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
20
Photosynthesis Research
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
21
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
22
The Plant Genome
57 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
23
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
176 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
24
Plant Methods
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
25
Phytopathology®
31 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
26
The Plant Journal
215 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%