Multi-model evaluation of phenology prediction for wheat in Australia
D. Wallach, T. Palosuo, P. Thorburn, Z. Hochman, F. Andrianasolo, S. Asseng, B. Basso, S. Buis, N. Crout, B. Dumont, R. Ferrise, T. Gaiser, S. Gayler, S. Hiremath, S. Hoek, H. Horan, G. Hoogenboom, M. Huang, M. Jabloun, P.-E. Jansson, Q. Jing, E. Justes, K. C. Kersebaum, M. Launay, E. Lewan, , L. Weihermüller
Abstract
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.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- How well do crop modeling groups predict wheat phenology, given calibration data from the target population?
D. Wallach, T. Palosuo, … J. Wang·bioRxiv·Mar 30, 2020
- Proposal and extensive test of a calibration protocol for crop phenology models
D. Wallach, T. Palosuo, … S. Seidel·bioRxiv·Jun 8, 2022
- Contribution of climate models and APSIM phenological parameters to uncertainties in spring wheat simulations: application of SUFI-2 algorithm in northeast Australia
B. Collins, U. Najeeb, … D. K. Y. Tan·bioRxiv·Jan 28, 2021
- Bayesian multi-level calibration of a process-based maize phenology model
M. Viswanathan, A. Scheidegger, … T. Weber·bioRxiv·Jun 3, 2022
- Assessing climate change risks associated with precipitation at unfavorable times in winter wheat using an improved crop calendar model incorporating vernalization and winter survival
K. Murakami, T. Iizumi, S. Shimoda·bioRxiv·Oct 19, 2023
- The chaos in calibrating crop models
D. Wallach, T. Palosuo, … Srivas·bioRxiv·Sep 12, 2020