|
|
Sanna, M., Acutis, M., & Bellocchi, G. (2014). Interrelationship between evaluation metrics to assess agro-ecological models (Vol. 3).
Abstract: When evaluating the performances of simulation models, the perception of the quality of the outputs may depend on the statistics used to compare simulated and observed data. In order to have a comprehensive understanding of model performance, the use of a variety of metrics is generally advocated. However, since they may be correlated, the use of two or more metrics may convey the same information, leading to redundancy. This study intends to investigate the interrelationship between evaluation metrics, with the aim of identifying the most useful set of indicators, for assessing simulation performance. Our focus is on agro-ecological modelling. Twenty-three performance indicators were selected to compare simulated and observed data of four agronomic and meteorological variables: above-ground biomass, leaf area index, hourly air relative humidity and daily solar radiation. Indicators were calculated on large data sets, collected to effectively apply correlation analysis techniques. For each variable, the interrelationship between each pair of indicators was evaluated, by computing the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. A definition of “stable correlation” was proposed, based on the test of heterogeneity, allowing to assess whether two or more correlation coefficients are equal. An optimal subset of indicators was identified, striking a balance between number of indicators, amount of provided information and information redundancy. They are: Index of Agreement, Squared Bias, Root Mean Squared Relative Error, Pattern Index, Persistence Model Efficiency and Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient. The present study was carried out in the context of CropM-LiveM cross-cutting activities of MACSUR knowledge hub. No Label
|
|
|
|
Bellocchi, G. (2015). Fuzzy-logic based multi-site crop model evaluation (Vol. 5).
Abstract: The most common way to evaluate simulation models is to quantify the agreement between observations and simulations via statistical metrics such as the root mean squared error and the linear regression coefficient of determination. It is agreed that the aggregation of metrics of different nature intro integrated indicators offers a valuable way to assess models. Expanded notions of model evaluation that have recently emerged, based on the trade-off between properties of the model and agreement between predictions and actual data under contrasting conditions, integrate sensitivity analysis measures and information criteria for model selection, as well as concepts of model robustness, and point to expert judgments to explore the importance of different metrics. As a FACCE MACSUR CropM-LiveM action, a composite indicator (MQIm: Model Quality Indicator for multi-site assessment) was elaborated, by a group of specialists, on metrics commonly used to evaluate crop models (with extension to grassland models) while also integrating aspects of model complexity and stability of performances. The indicator, based on fuzzy bounds applied to a set of weighed metrics, was first revised by a broader group of modellers and then assessed via questionnaire survey of scientists and end-users. We document a crop model evaluation in Europe and assess to what extent the MQIm reflects the main components of model quality and supports inferences about model performances. No Label
|
|
|
|
Bellocchi, G., & Sándor, R. (2015). Model intercomparison (Vol. 6).
Abstract: This deliverable focuses on some illustrative results obtained with different grassland- specific, grassland adapted crop and dynamic vegetation models selected out of the first list of models compiled in D-L2.1.1 to simulate biomass and flux data from grassland sites in Europe and peri-Mediterranean regions (D-L2.1.1 and D-L2.1.2). Results from uncalibrated simulations were documented in the D-L2.3 report as a blind exercise. Some model improvements are emphasized in this report due to the higher information level of the model calibrations. The complete set of results will include simulations from uncalibrated and calibrated models. No Label
|
|
|
|
Cammarano, D., Rivington, M., Matthews, K., B,, & Bellocchi, G. (2015). Estimates of crop responses to climate change with quantified ranges of uncertainty (Vol. 6).
Abstract: In estimating responses of crops to future climate realisations, it is necessary to understand and differentiate between the sources of uncertainty in climate models and how these lead to errors in estimating the past climate and biases in future projections, and how these affect crop model estimates. This paper investigates the complexities in using climate model projections representing different spatial scales within climate change impacts and adaptation studies. This is illustrated by simulating spring barley with three crop models run using site-specific observed, original (50•50 km) and bias corrected downscaled (site-specific) hindcast (1960-1990) weather data from the HadRM3 Regional Climate Model (RCM). Original and bias corrected downscaled weather data were evaluated against the observed data. The comparisons made between the crop models were in the light of lessons learned from this data evaluation. Though the bias correction downscaling method improved the match between observed and hindcast data, this did not always translate into better matching of crop models estimates. At four sites the original HadRM3 data produced near identical mean simulated yield values as from the observed weather data, despite differences in the weather data, giving a situation of ‘right results for the wrong reasons’. This was likely due to compensating errors in the input weather data and non-linearity in crop models processes, making interpretation of results problematic. Overall, bias correction downscaling improved the quality of simulated outputs. Understanding how biases in climate data manifest themselves in crop models gives greater confidence in the utility of the estimates produced using downscaled future climate projections. The results indicate implications on how future projections of climate change impacts are interpreted. Fundamentally, considerable care is required in determining the impact weather data sources have in climate change impact and adaptation studies, whether from individual models or ensembles. No Label
|
|
|
|
Brilli, L., Ferrise, R., Dibari, C., Bindi, M., & Bellocchi, G. (2017). Needs on model improvement (Vol. 10).
Abstract: The need to answer new scientific questions can be satisfied by an increased knowledge of physiological mechanisms which, in turn, can be used for improving the accuracy of simulations of process-based models. In this context, this report highlights areas that need to be further improved to facilitate the operational use of simulation models. It describes missing approaches within simulation models which, if implemented, would likely improve the representation of the dynamics of processes underlying different compartments of crop and grassland systems (e.g. plant growth and development, yield production, GHG emissions), as well as of the livestock production systems. The following rationale has been used in the organization of this report. We first briefly introduced the need to improve the reliability of existing models. Then, we indicated climate change and its influence on the global carbon balance as the main issue to be addressed by existing crop and grassland (section 2), and livestock (section 3) models. In section 2, among the major aspects that if implemented may reduce the uncertainty inherent to model outputs, we suggested: i) quantifying the effects of climate extremes on biological systems; ii) modelling of multi-species sward; iii) coupling of pest and disease sub-models; iv) improvement of the carry-over effect. In section 3, as the most important aspects to consider in livestock models we indicated: i) impacts and dynamics of pathogens and disease; ii) heat stress effects on livestock; iii) effects on grassland productivity and nutritional values; iv) improvement of GHG emissions dynamics. In Section 4, remarks are made concerning the need to implement the suggested aspects into the existing models.
|
|
