Back

Evaluating a Cassava Crop Growth Model by Optimizing Genotypic-Specific Parameters Using Multi-environment Trial Breeding Data

Okoma, P. M.; Kayondo, S. S.; Rabbi, I. Y.; Moreno-Cadena, P. L.; Hoogenboom, G. Y.; Jannink, J.-L.

2024-11-02 plant biology
10.1101/2024.10.29.620843 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) is a critical food security crop for sub-Saharan Africa. Efforts to improve cassava through breeding have expanded over the past decade. At the same time, crop growth models (CGM) are becoming common place in breeding efforts to expand the inference of evaluations of breeding germplasm to environments that have not been tested and to prepare for breeding for adaptation to future climates. We parameterized a CGM, the CROPGRO-MANIHOT-Cassava model in the DSSAT family of models, using data on 67 clones from the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture cassava breeding program evaluated from 2017 to 2020 and over eight locations in Nigeria using trial and error parameter adjustments and the General Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation method. Our objectives were to assess the feasibility of this large-scale calibration in the context of a cassava breeding program and to identify systematic biases of the model. For each cultivar we calculated the Pearson correlation between model prediction and observation across the environments, as well as root mean squared error and d statistics. As a result of calibration, the correlation coefficient increased from -0.03 to +0.08, the RMSE dropped from 21 t ha-1 to 5 t ha-1 while d increased from 0.23 to 0.44. We found that the model underestimated root yield in dry environments (low precipitation and high temperature) and overestimated root yield in wet environments (high precipitation and low temperature). Our experience suggests both that CGM calibration could become a routine component of the cassava breeding data analysis cycle and that there are opportunities for model improvement.

Matching journals

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

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 7%
22.6%
2
Crop Science
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.3%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 18%
6.3%
4
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
5
The Plant Genome
53 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
6
Plant Direct
81 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.0%
7
Theoretical and Applied Genetics
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
8
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
9
The Plant Phenome Journal
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
10
Agronomy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
11
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
12
Plants
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
Plant Methods
39 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
14
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
222 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
Pest Management Science
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
16
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
17
Gigabyte
60 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
18
Phytopathology®
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
19
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
20
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
21
Plant Phenomics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
22
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
23
in silico Plants
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
24
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%
25
G3
33 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%