ArticlePloS one2024
Effects of different observed datasets on the calibration of crop model parameters with GLUE: A case study using the CROPGRO-Soybean phenological model.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
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
Suitable combinations of observed datasets for estimating crop model parameters can reduce the computational cost while ensuring accuracy. This study aims to explore the quantitative influence of different combinations of the observed phenological stages on estimation of cultivar-specific parameters (CPSs). We used the CROPGRO-Soybean phenological model (CSPM) as a case study in combination with the Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) method. Different combinations of four observed phenological stages, including initial flowering, initial pod, initial grain, and initial maturity stages for five soybean cultivars from Exp. 1 and Exp. 3 described in Table 2 are respectively used to calibrate the CSPs. The CSPM, driven by the optimized CSPs, is then evaluated against two independent phenological datasets from Exp. 2 and Exp. 4 described in Table 2. Root means square error (RMSE) (mean absolute error (MAE), coefficient of determination (R2), and Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE)) are 15.50 (14.63, 0.96, 0.42), 4.76 (3.92, 0.97, 0.95), 4.69 (3.72, 0.98, 0.95), 3.91 (3.40, 0.99, 0.96) and 12.54 (11.67, 0.95, 0.60), 5.07 (4.61, 0.98, 0.93), 4.97 (4.28, 0.97, 0.94), 4.58 (4.02, 0.98, 0.95) for using one, two, three, and four observed phenological stages in the CSPs estimation. The evaluation results suggest that RMSE and MAE decrease, and R2 and NSE increase with the increase in the number of observed phenological stages used for parameter calibration. However, there is no significant reduction in the RMSEs (MAEs, NSEs) using two, three, and four observed stages. Relatively reliable optimized CSPs for CSMP are obtained by using at least two observed phenological stages balancing calibration effect and computational cost. These findings provide new insight into parameter estimation of crop models.
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.