ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of three algorithms for estimating crop model parameters based on multi-source data: A case study using the CROPGRO-Soybean phenological model.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Accurate prediction of crop phenological stage is essential for evaluating management strategies and assessing crop responses to environmental changes. In this work, we modified Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm with the core algorithm of PEST (MNSGA-II) and compared it to two other algorithms of Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) and Differential Evolution (DE) to calibrate the cultivar-specific parameters (CSPs) of CROPGRO-Soybean phenological model (CSPM) so as to exactly simulate the soybean phenology using the multi-source datasets of multi-site, multi-year, and multi-cultivar. Independent experimental data are used to validate the CSPM with the optimized parameters. The root means square error (RMSE), the mean absolute error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R2) are used to evaluate the effects of different algorithms on calibrating the CSPs. The RMSEs (MAEs, R2) between all observed data and simulated data based on MNSGA-II, GLUE and DE are 4.28 (3.53, 0.9445) days, 4.76 (4.05, 0.9438) days and 5.17 (4.85, 0.9336) days, respectively, with little difference among the three algorithms. MNSGA-II has a certain advantage in calibration effect, and GLUE is the most stable during the repetition of each calibration. The MNSGA-II can be considered as a relatively ideal algorithm for estimating the crop model parameter. Which algorithm should be selected to calibrate the parameters of crop model according to the actual requirements. These results provide a reference to choose the suitable algorithm for estimating crop model parameter.
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.