Lewan, E. | Search bioRxiv

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↗