Priesack, E. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2019

Call for participation: Collaborative benchmarking of functional-structural root architecture models. The case of root water uptake.

Three-dimensional models of root growth, architecture and function are becoming important tools that aid the design of agricultural management schemes and the selection of beneficial root traits. However, while benchmarking is common in many disciplines that use numerical models such as natural and engineering sciences, functional-structural root architecture models have never been systematically compared. The following reasons might induce disagreement between the simulation results of different models: different representation of root growth, sink term of root water and solute uptake and representation of the rhizosphere. Presently, the extent of discrepancies is unknown, and a framework for quantitatively comparing functional-structural root architecture models is required. We propose, in a first step, to define benchmarking scenarios that test individual components of complex models: root architecture, water flow in soil and water flow in roots. While the latter two will focus mainly on comparing numerical aspects, the root architectural models have to be compared at a conceptual level as they generally differ in process representation. Therefore defining common inputs that allow recreating reference root systems in all models will be a key challenge. In a second step, benchmarking scenarios for the coupled problems are defined. We expect that the results of step 1 will enable us to better interpret differences found in step 2. This benchmarking will result in a better understanding of the different models and contribute towards improving them. Improved models will allow us to simulate various scenarios with greater confidence and avoid bugs, numerical errors or conceptual misunderstandings. This work will set a standard for future model development.

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↗