% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Tewes:874693,
author = {Tewes, Andreas and Hoffmann, Holger and Krauss, Gunther and
Schäfer, Fabian and Kerkhoff, Christian and Gaiser, Thomas},
title = {{N}ew {A}pproaches for the {A}ssimilation of {LAI}
{M}easurements into a {C}rop {M}odel {E}nsemble to {I}mprove
{W}heat {B}iomass {E}stimations},
journal = {Agronomy},
volume = {10},
number = {3},
issn = {2073-4395},
address = {Basel},
publisher = {MDPI},
reportid = {FZJ-2020-01608},
pages = {446 -},
year = {2020},
abstract = {The assimilation of LAI measurements, repeatedly taken at
sub-field level, into dynamic crop simulation models could
provide valuable information for precision farming
applications. Commonly used updating methods such as the
Ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF) rely on an ensemble of model
runs to update a limited set of state variables every time a
new observation becomes available. This threatens the
model’s integrity, as not the entire table of model states
is updated. In this study, we present the Weighted Mean (WM)
approach that relies on a model ensemble that runs from
simulation start to simulation end without compromising the
consistency and integrity of the state variables. We
measured LAI on 14 winter wheat fields across France,
Germany and the Netherlands and assimilated these
observations into the LINTUL5 crop model using the EnKF and
WM approaches, where the ensembles were created using one
set of crop component (CC) ensemble generation variables and
one set of soil and crop component (SCC) ensemble generation
variables. The model predictions for total aboveground
biomass and grain yield at harvest were evaluated against
measurements collected in the fields. Our findings showed
that (a) the performance of the WM approach was very similar
to the EnKF approach when SCC variables were used for the
ensemble generation, but outperformed the EnKF approach when
only CC variables were considered, (b) the difference in
site-specific performance largely depended on the choice of
the set of ensemble generation variables, with SCC
outperforming CC with regard to both biomass and grain
yield, and (c) both EnKF and WM improved accuracy of biomass
and yield estimates over standard model runs or the ensemble
mean. We conclude that the WM data assimilation approach is
equally efficient to the improvement of model accuracy,
compared to the updating methods, but it has the advantage
that it does not compromise the integrity and consistency of
the state variables.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {640},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
(POF3-255)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000529377300132},
doi = {10.3390/agronomy10030446},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/874693},
}