Biology subjects

Launay, M.

Publications and source records attributed to Launay, M..

9 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating crop models for future climate scenarios: wheat yield predictions using APSIM and STICS under combined CO2, warming, and water deficit conditions

Crop models are essential for predicting climate change impacts on agriculture, yet their validation under multi-stress conditions remains limited. This study evaluated two widely-used wheat models, APSIM and STICS, using data from three Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments (USA, Germany, Australia) combining elevated CO2 (eCO2), water deficit, and warming. Environmental characterisation using simulation-based stress indices revealed that intended "controls" frequently experienced hidden heat and water stress, meaning models were calibrated on crops already undergoing physiological adjustments. Evaluation of simulated yield and components revealed a clear hierarchy in prediction errors (RRMSE): unlimited conditions (3-9%) < single stress (4-27%, with a need to improve response to heat stress) < combined stress (17-123%). Elevated CO2 generally increased prediction uncertainty for crops experiencing water stress. Our results suggest that current stress functions from the models fail to capture the synergistic coupling between drought and heat stress. This highlights the urgent need for more mechanistic modelling to improve the reliability of climate change impact assessments.

plant biology↗

bioRxiv2025

Plant plasticity in the face of climate change - CO2 offsetting effects to warming and water deficit in wheat. A review.

Future crop production will depend on plant plasticity in response to increases in atmospheric CO2, mean temperature, heatwave and drought events. The present review intends to highlight the impact of interactions between high CO2 levels, warming and water deficit in existing published experimental data in the case of wheat. To do so, we identified experiments quantifying the effects of such interactions on traits related to crop productivity and water use. We used the collected data to estimate plasticity indices assessing compensation and interaction between elevated CO2 and adverse climatic conditions, bringing a new perspective on the matter. In the studied data, even though there is an important variability, we found that crop productivity tends to decrease despite the positive effects of the rise in CO2 concentration. Conversely, with elevated CO2, water consumption tends to decrease despite the warmer conditions. We hypothesized that the positive effect of CO2 on crop productivity is greater under drought conditions, which is confirmed in 54% of the experiments. This review highlights the need to acquire further experimental data under possible future conditions to calibrate and validate crop models: their range of validity requires more thorough testing under the wide range of projected environmental conditions.

plant biology↗

bioRxiv2025

Refining type and timing of measured crop variables for the calibration of a new winter wheat cultivar in the STICS crop model

Crop models need to be regularly upgraded with parametrization for new cultivars but this requires calibration, which is a major challenge. With winter wheat cultivar Rubisko as a case study, we propose to apply a calibration protocol to estimate the parameters of this new cultivar with multi-trials experimental data. We tested the calibration protocol in different conditions including or not LAI and/or biomass experimental data and we found that the resulting LAI and biomass dynamics strongly diverge. Several key findings emerge from this study: (1) RUE parameters should be excluded from the calibration process, as their critical role in biomass dynamics causes the optimization algorithm to treat them as adjustment parameters, resulting in unrealistic values for multiple parameters; (2) either LAI or biomass variables alone are sufficient for calibration, enabling experimental efforts to focus on one variable rather than both; and (3) the use of a synthetic dataset has facilitated the identification of the optimal type and timing of data collection needed to parameterize a new variety in the model. Moreover, the proposed methodology offers extrapolatable solutions applicable to other contexts (e.g., different models or datasets) and provides guidance on acquiring the most effective dataset for optimal calibration. The unbalanced structure of our dataset also highlighted the need to mobilize other calibration criteria (weighted RMSE) and alternative solutions to bridge the gap between quantitative metrics and empirical visual assessments.

plant biology↗

bioRxiv2023

A calibration protocol for soil-crop models aimed at reducing prediction error and inter-model variability

Process-based soil-crop models are widely used in agronomic research. They are major tools for evaluating climate change impact on crop production. Multi-model simulation studies show a wide diversity of results among models, implying that simulation results are very uncertain. A major path to improving simulation results is to propose improved calibration practices that are widely applicable. This study proposes an innovative generic calibration protocol. The two major innovations concern the treatment of multiple output variables and the choice of parameters to estimate, both of which are based on standard statistical procedure adapted to the particularities of soil-crop models. The protocol performed well in a challenging artificial-data test. The protocol is formulated so as to be applicable to a wide range of models and data sets. If widely adopted, it could substantially reduce model error and inter-model variability, and thus increase confidence in soil-crop model simulations.

plant biology↗

bioRxiv2023

Uncertainty in crop phenology simulations is driven primarily by parameter variability

It has become common to compare crop model results in multi-model simulation experiments. In general, one observes a large variability in such studies, which reduces the confidence one can have in such models. It is important to understand the causes of this variability as a first step toward reducing it. For a given data set, the variability in a multi-model study can arise from uncertainty in structure or in parameter values for a given structure. Previous studies have made assumptions about the origin of parameter uncertainty, and then quantified its contribution, generally finding that parameter uncertainty is less important than structure uncertainty. However, those studies do not take account of the full parameter variability in multi-model studies. Here we propose estimating parameter uncertainty based on open-call multi-model ensembles where the same structure is used by more than one modeling group. The variability in such a case is due to the full variability of parameters among modeling groups. Then structure and parameter contributions can be estimated sing random effects analysis of variance. Based on three multi-model studies for simulating wheat phenology, it is found that the contribution of parameter uncertainty to total uncertainty is, on average, more than twice as large as the uncertainty from structure. A second estimate, based on a comparison of two different calibration approaches for multiple models leads to a very similar result. We conclude that improvement of crop models requires as much attention to parameters as to model structure.

plant biology↗

bioRxiv2022

Calibration of crop phenology models: Going beyond recommendations

A major effect of environment on crops is through crop phenology, and therefore, the capacity to predict phenology for new environments is important. Mechanistic crop models are a major tool for such predictions, but calibration of crop phenology models is difficult and there is no consensus on the best approach. Here we propose an original, detailed approach, a protocol, for calibration of such models. The protocol covers all the steps in the calibration work-flow, namely choice of default parameter values, choice of objective function, choice of parameters to estimate from the data, calculation of optimal parameter values and diagnostics. The major innovation is in the choice of which parameters to estimate from the data, which combines expert knowledge and data-based model selection. First, almost additive parameters are identified and estimated. This should make bias (average difference between observed and simulated values) nearly zero. These are "obligatory" parameters, that will definitely be estimated. Then candidate parameters are identified, which are parameters likely to explain the remaining discrepancies between simulated and observed values. A candidate is only added to the list of parameters to estimate if it leads to a reduction in BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion), which is a model selection criterion. A second original aspect of the protocol is the specification of documentation for each stage of the protocol. The protocol was applied by 19 modeling teams to three data sets for wheat phenology. All teams first calibrated their model using their "usual" calibration approach, so it was possible to compare usual and protocol calibration. Evaluation of prediction error was based on data from sites and years not represented in the training data. Compared to usual calibration, calibration following the new protocol reduced the variability between modeling teams by 22% and significantly reduced prediction error.

plant biology↗

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

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↗