Abstract: The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.

Abstract: This study presents a Bayesian approach for the parameters’ identification of the STICS crop model based on the recently developed Differential Evolution Adaptive Metropolis (DREAM) algorithm. The posterior distributions of nine specific crop parameters of the STICS model were sampled with the aim to improve the growth simulations of a winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L) culture. The results obtained with the DREAM algorithm were initially compared to those obtained with a Nelder-Mead Simplex algorithm embedded within the OptimiSTICS package. Then, three types of likelihood functions implemented within the DREAM algorithm were compared, namely the standard least square, the weighted least square, and a transformed likelihood function that makes explicit use of the coefficient of variation (CV). The results showed that the proposed CV likelihood function allowed taking into account both noise on measurements and heteroscedasticity which are regularly encountered in crop modelling. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: To reduce the dependence on local expert knowledge, which is important for large-scale crop modelling studies, we analyzed sowing dates and rules for maize (Zea mays L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L)) at three locations in Burkina Faso with strongly decreasing rainfall amounts from south to north. We tested in total 22 methods to derive optimal sowing dates that result in highest water-limited yields and lowest yield variation in a reproducible and objective way. The WOFOST crop growth simulation model was used. We found that sowing dates that are based on local expert knowledge, may work quite well for Burkina Faso and for West Africa in general. However, when no a priori information is available, maize should be sown between Julian days 160 and 200, with application of the following criteria: (a) cumulative rainfall in the sowing window is >= 3 cm or available soil moisture content is >2 cm in the moderately dry central part of Burkina Faso, (b) cumulative rainfall in this period is >= 2 cm or available soil moisture content is >1 cm in the more humid regions in the southern part of Burkina Faso. Sorghum should also be sown between Julian days 160 and 200 with application of the following criteria: (a) in the dry northern part of Burkina Faso the long duration sorghum variety should be sown when cumulative rainfall is >2 cm in the sowing window, and the short duration sorghum variety should be sown later when cumulative rainfall is >= 3 cm, (b) in central Burkina Faso sowing should start when cumulative rainfall in this period is >= 2 cm or when available soil moisture content is >1 cm. Sowing date rules are shown to be generally crop and location specific and are not generic for West Africa. However, the required precision of the sowing rules appears to rapidly decrease with increasing duration and intensity of the rainy season. Sowing delay as a result of, for example, labour constraints, has a disastrous effect on rainfed maize and sorghum yields, particularly in the northern part of West Africa with low rainfall. Optimization of sowing dates can also be done by simulating crop yields in a time window of two months around a predefined sowing date. Using these optimized dates appears to result in a good estimate of the maximal mean rainfed yield level. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.