ArticleAnnals of botany2018
A new methodology based on sensitivity analysis to simplify the recalibration of functional-structural plant models in new conditions.
Article in Annals of botany, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical Identifiability of Plant Growth Models: A Unifying Framework and Its Specification for Three Local Indices.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2024Article
- Functional-Structural Plant Model "GreenLab": A State-of-the-Art Review.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2024Article
- Parameter estimation for functional-structural plant models when data are scarce: using multiple patterns for rejecting unsuitable parameter sets.Annals of botany · 2020Article
- Turgor-driven plant growth applied in a soybean functional-structural plant model.Annals of botany · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Functional-structural plant models (FSPMs) describe explicitly the interactions between plants and their environment at organ to plant scale. However, the high level of description of the structure or model mechanisms makes this type of model very complex and hard to calibrate. A two-step methodology to facilitate the calibration process is proposed here. Methods: First, a global sensitivity analysis method was applied to the calibration loss function. It provided first-order and total-order sensitivity indexes that allow parameters to be ranked by importance in order to select the most influential ones. Second, the Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used to quantify the model's quality of fit after calibration with different combinations of selected parameters. The model with the lowest AIC gives the best combination of parameters to select. This methodology was validated by calibrating the model on an independent data set (same cultivar, another year) with the parameters selected in the second step. All the parameters were set to their nominal value; only the most influential ones were re-estimated. Key Results: Sensitivity analysis applied to the calibration loss function is a relevant method to underline the most significant parameters in the estimation process. For the studied winter oilseed rape model, 11 out of 26 estimated parameters were selected. Then, the model could be recalibrated for a different data set by re-estimating only three parameters selected with the model selection method. Conclusions: Fitting only a small number of parameters dramatically increases the efficiency of recalibration, increases the robustness of the model and helps identify the principal sources of variation in varying environmental conditions. This innovative method still needs to be more widely validated but already gives interesting avenues to improve the calibration of FSPMs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.