% 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{Wallach:889347,
author = {Wallach, Daniel and Palosuo, Taru and Thorburn, Peter and
Hochman, Zvi and Andrianasolo, Fety and Asseng, Senthold and
Basso, Bruno and Buis, Samuel and Crout, Neil and Dumont,
Benjamin and Ferrise, Roberto and Gaiser, Thomas and Gayler,
Sebastian and Hiremath, Santosh and Hoek, Steven and Horan,
Heidi and Hoogenboom, Gerrit and Huang, Mingxia and Jabloun,
Mohamed and Jansson, Per-Erik and Jing, Qi and Justes, Eric
and Kersebaum, Kurt Christian and Launay, Marie and Lewan,
Elisabet and Luo, Qunying and Maestrini, Bernardo and
Moriondo, Marco and Olesen, Jørgen Eivind and Padovan,
Gloria and Poyda, Arne and Priesack, Eckart and Pullens,
Johannes Wilhelmus Maria and Qian, Budong and Schütze,
Niels and Shelia, Vakhtang and Souissi, Amir and Specka,
Xenia and Kumar Srivastava, Amit and Stella, Tommaso and
Streck, Thilo and Trombi, Giacomo and Wallor, Evelyn and
Wang, Jing and Weber, Tobias K. D. and Weihermüller, Lutz
and de Wit, Allard and Wöhling, Thomas and Xiao, Liujun and
Zhao, Chuang and Zhu, Yan and Seidel, Sabine J},
title = {{M}ulti-model evaluation of phenology prediction for wheat
in {A}ustralia},
journal = {Agricultural and forest meteorology},
volume = {298-299},
issn = {0168-1923},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {FZJ-2021-00236},
pages = {108289 -},
year = {2021},
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.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {2173 - Agro-biogeosystems: controls, feedbacks and impact
(POF4-217)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-2173},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000610797100011},
doi = {10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.108289},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/889347},
}