Back

Automatic calibration of a functional-structural wheat model using an adaptive design and a metamodelling approach

Blanc, E.; Enjalbert, J.; Barbillon, P.

2021-07-30 bioinformatics
10.1101/2021.07.29.454328 bioRxiv
Show abstract

O_LIBackground and Aims Functional-structural plant models are increasingly being used by plant scientists to address a wide variety of questions. However, the calibration of these complex models is often challenging, mainly because of their high computational cost. In this paper, we applied an automatic method to the calibration of WALTer: a functional-structural wheat model that simulates the plasticity of tillering in response to competition for light. C_LIO_LIMethods We used a Bayesian calibration method to estimate the values of 5 parameters of the WALTer model by fitting the model outputs to tillering dynamics data. The method presented in this paper is based on the Efficient Global Optimisation algorithm. It involves the use of Gaussian process metamodels to generate fast approximations of the model outputs. To account for the uncertainty associated with the metamodels approximations, an adaptive design was used. The efficacy of the method was first assessed using simulated data. The calibration was then applied to experimental data. C_LIO_LIKey Results The method presented here performed well on both simulated and experimental data. In particular, the use of an adaptive design proved to be a very efficient method to improve the quality of the metamodels predictions, especially by reducing the uncertainty in areas of the parameter space that were of interest for the fitting. Moreover, we showed the necessity to have a diversity of field data in order to be able to calibrate the parameters. C_LIO_LIConclusions The method presented in this paper, based on an adaptive design and Gaussian process metamodels, is an efficient approach for the calibration of WALTer and could be of interest for the calibration of other functional-structural plant models. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
in silico Plants
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
32.4%
2
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 1%
7.1%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.7%
4
Theoretical and Applied Genetics
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
Plant Direct
81 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.1%
6
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.5%
7
Plant Methods
39 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.0%
8
Crop Science
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
9
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.0%
10
Plant Physiology
217 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
11
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.9%
12
Horticulture Research
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
13
Physiologia Plantarum
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
Plants
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
15
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
16
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
17
Vision Research
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
18
Journal of Experimental Botany
195 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
20
Plant Phenomics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
21
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
22
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
23
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
24
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 24%
0.8%
25
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
26
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 75%
0.7%
27
The Plant Genome
53 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%