Evaluation of multimodel averaging approaches for ensembling evapotranspiration and yield simulations from maize models
2025
Nand, Viveka | Qi, Zhiming | Ma, Liwang | Helmers, Matthew, J | Madramootoo, Chandra, A | Smith, Ward, N | Zhang, Tiequan | Weber, Tobias K.D. | Pattey, Elizabeth | Li, Ziwei | Wang, Jiaxin | Jin, Virginia, L | Jiang, Qianjing | Tenuta, Mario | Trout, Thomas, J | Cheng, Haomiao | Harmel, R. Daren | Kimball, Bruce, A | Thorp, Kelly, R | Boote, Kenneth, J | Stockle, Claudio | Suyker, Andrew, E | Evett, Steven, R | Brauer, David, K | Coyle, Gwen, G | Copeland, Karen, S | Marek, Gary, W | Colaizzi, Paul, D | Acutis, Marco | Alimagham, Seyyed Majid | Archontoulis, Sotirios | Babacar, Faye | Barcza, Zoltán | Basso, Bruno | Bertuzzi, Patrick | Constantin, Julie | de Antoni Migliorati, Massimiliano | Dumont, Benjamin | Durand, Jean-Louis | Fodor, Nándor | Gaiser, Thomas | Garofalo, Pasquale | Gayler, Sebastian | Giglio, Luisa | Grant, Robert | Guan, Kaiyu | Hoogenboom, Gerrit | Kim, Soo-Hyung | Kisekka, Isaya | Lizaso, Jon | Masia, Sara | Meng, Huimin | Mereu, Valentina | Mukhtar, Ahmed | Perego, Alessia | Peng, Bin | Priesack, Eckart | Shelia, Vakhtang | Snyder, Richard | Soltani, Afshin | Spano, Donatella | Srivastava, Amit | Thomson, Aimee | Timlin, Dennis | Trabucco, Antonio | Webber, Heidi | Willaume, Magali | Williams, Karina | van der Laan, Michael | Ventrella, Domenico | Viswanathan, Michelle | Xu, Xu | Zhou, Wang | McGill University = Université McGill [Montréal, Canada] | USDA-ARS : Agricultural Research Service | Iowa State University (ISU) | Agriculture and Agri-Food (AAFC) | Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada | Universität Hohenheim = University of Hohenheim | Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre ; Agriculture and Agri-Food (AAFC) | Zhejiang Sci-Tech University | Department of Computer Science and Technology (CST) ; Tsinghua University [Beijing] (THU) | University of Manitoba [Winnipeg] | Yangzhou University | Center for Agricultural Resources Research ; Chinese Academy of Sciences [Changchun Branch] (CAS) | USDA Agricultural Research Service [Maricopa, AZ] (USDA) ; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) | University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF) | Washington State University (WSU) | University of Nebraska Omaha ; University of Nebraska System | Università degli Studi di Milano = University of Milan (UNIMI) | Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources | Université du Sine Saloum El-Hadj Ibrahima NIASS (USSEIN) | Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung = Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) | Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem = Eötvös Loránd University [Budapest] (ELTE) | Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (CZU) | Michigan State University [East Lansing] ; Michigan State University System | Agroclim (AGROCLIM) ; Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE) | AGroécologie, Innovations, teRritoires (AGIR) ; Ecole d'Ingénieurs de Purpan (EI Purpan) ; Communauté d'universités et établissements de Toulouse (Comue de Toulouse)-Communauté d'universités et établissements de Toulouse (Comue de Toulouse) | Department of Environment and Science [Queensland] (DES) | Université de Liège = University of Liège = Universiteit van Luik = Universität Lüttich (ULiège) | Agricultural Institute [Budapest] (ATK MGI) ; Centre for Agricultural Research [Budapest] (ATK) ; Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA)-Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA) | Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation [Bonn] (INRES) ; Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn | Centro di Ricerca Agricoltura e Ambiente [CREA] (CREA-AA) ; Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria = Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA) | University of Alberta | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [Urbana] (UIUC) ; University of Illinois System | University of Washington [Seattle] | University of California [Davis] (UC Davis) ; University of California (UC) | Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial [UPM, Spain] (DIA) ; Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) | Institute for Water Education (IHE Delft) | China Agricultural University (CAU) | Fondazione Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici [Caserta] (CMCC) | Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University = PMAS-Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi (AAUR) | Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences = Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet (SLU) | College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences [Illinois] (ACES) ; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [Urbana] (UIUC) ; University of Illinois System-University of Illinois System | Helmholtz Diabetes Center [Munich] | Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC) | Met Office Hadley Centre (MOHC) ; United Kingdom Met Office [Exeter] | University of Pretoria [South Africa] | Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India 11015/48/2018-SCD-V | Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) | McGill University
International audience
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Inglés. Combining multi-model simulations can reduce the uncertainty in model structure and increase the accuracy of agricultural systems modeling results. This improvement is essential for supporting better decision making in irrigation planning and climate change adaptation strategies. Besides the commonly used arithmetic mean and median, many multi-model averaging approaches (MAA), widely examined in groundwater and hydrological modeling, but these additional MAA have not been examined in agricultural system modeling to improve the simulation accuracy. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of seven MAA: two equal weighted approaches (Simple Model Averaging (SMA) and Median) and five weighted approaches (Inverse Ranking (IR), Bates and Granger Averaging (BGA), and Granger Ramanathan A, B, and C (GRA, GRB, and GRC)) in combining results of multiple agricultural system models. The Granger Ramanathan methods differ in their constraints: GRA employs conventional least squares, GRB requires non-negative weights that total to one, and GRC reduces absolute errors for robustness against outliers. The evaluation was conducted using maize yield and daily ETa simulations for both blind (uncalibrated) and calibrated phases of data from two groups of maize sites (Group A and Group B) across North America. The modeling results from the blind and calibrated phases were combined for all maize models and group maize models. Overall, all MAA performed better than individual crop models for blind and calibration phases. Specifically, the GRB model averaging method provided the closest match to measured values for daily ETa, while GRA was the most accurate for maize yield in most cases across all sites and phases. GRB improved daily ETa estimation over the median by an average of 4 % and 8.5 % in terms of RRMSE, while GRA enhanced maize yield estimation over the median by 7.5 % and 10.9 % for Group A and Group B sites, respectively. Notably, the improvement was greater in the blind phase for both groups of maize sites. An ensemble of group maize models with varied structures performed nearly as well as an ensemble of all maize models in simulating daily ETa and yield for Group A and Group B sites. Based on the results, we recommend GRA for crop yield and GRB for ETa simulations for maize, but both methods require observed yield and ETa data for their application; however, in the absence of observed data, we recommend the SMA method as it performs better than the median. However, the performance of these MAA methods may differ for other crops (e.g., soybean, wheat, canola, potato, alfalfa) or regions, and it should be evaluated in future studies.
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Palabras clave de AGROVOC
Información bibliográfica
Este registro bibliográfico ha sido proporcionado por Institut national de la recherche agronomique