% 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:889706,
author = {Wallach, Daniel and Palosuo, Taru and Thorburn, Peter and
Gourdain, Emmanuelle and Asseng, Senthold and Basso, Bruno
and Buis, Samuel and Crout, Neil and Dibari, Camilla and
Dumont, Benjamin and Ferrise, Roberto and Gaiser, Thomas and
Garcia, Cécile and Gayler, Sebastian and Ghahramani, Afshin
and Hochman, Zvi and Hoek, Steven and Hoogenboom, Gerrit and
Horan, Heidi and Huang, Mingxia and Jabloun, Mohamed and
Jing, Qi and Justes, Eric and Kersebaum, Kurt Christian and
Klosterhalfen, Anne and Launay, Marie and Luo, Qunying and
Maestrini, Bernardo and Mielenz, Henrike and Moriondo, Marco
and Nariman Zadeh, Hasti and Olesen, Jørgen Eivind 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
Srivastava, Amit Kumar 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 = {{H}ow well do crop modeling groups predict wheat phenology,
given calibration data from the target population?},
journal = {European journal of agronomy},
volume = {124},
issn = {1161-0301},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier Science},
reportid = {FZJ-2021-00328},
pages = {126195 -},
year = {2021},
abstract = {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.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {640},
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:000620810400008},
doi = {10.1016/j.eja.2020.126195},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/889706},
}