Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Kenneth J. Boote

Publications and source records attributed to Kenneth J. Boote.

Evaluating Differences Among Crop Models in Simulating Soybean in-Season Growth

Crop models are useful tools for simulating agricultural systems that require continued model development and testing to increase their robustness and improve how they describe our current understanding of processes. Coordinated and “blind” evaluation of multiple models using same protocols and experimental datasets provides unique opportunities to further improve models and enhance their reliability. For soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], there has been limited coordinated multi-model evaluations for the simulation of in-season plant growth dynamics. We evaluated ten dynamic soybean crop models for their simulation of in-season plant growth using data from five experiments conducted in Argentina, Brazil, France, and USA. We evaluated models after a Blind (using only phenology data) and a Full calibration (with in-season and end-of-season variables). Calibration reduced model uncertainty by reducing standard bias for the simulation of in-season variables (biomass, leaf, pod, and stem weights, and leaf area index, LAI). However, we found that most models had difficulty in reproducing leaf growth dynamics, with normalized root mean squared error (nRMSE) of 56% for leaf weight and 43% for LAI (across locations and models after Full calibration). Models with different levels of complexity and experience were capable of simulating final seed yield at maturity with reasonable accuracy (nRMSE of 8–31% after Full calibration). However, the nRMSE for pod weight (of 17–64% after Full calibration) was two-fold larger than that of seed yield. Moreover, the models differed in how they simulated timing from sowing to beginning seed growth (47–93 days) and effective seed filling period (18–54 days), owing to model structural differences in defining the reproductive developmental stages. Overall, we identified the following processes that can benefit from further model improvement: leaf expansion and senescence, reproductive phenology, and partitioning to reproductive growth. Simulation of pod wall tissue and individual seed cohorts is another aspect that many models currently lack. Model improvement can benefit from high-temporal resolution experimental datasets that concurrently account for phenology, plant growth, and partitioning. Further, we recommend collecting reproductive phenology in the field consistent with actual dry matter allocation to organs in the models and collecting multiple observations of seed and pod weight to aid model improvement for simulation of seed growth and yield formation.

Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement↗

Are Soybean Models Ready for Climate Change Food Impact Assessments?

An accurate estimation of crop yield under climate change scenarios is essential to quantify our ability to feed a growing population and develop agronomic adaptations to meet future food demand. A coordinated evaluation of yield simulations from process-based eco-physiological models for climate change impact assessment is still missing for soybean, the most widely grown grain legume and the main source of protein in our food chain. In this first soybean multi-model study, we used ten prominent models capable of simulating soybean yield under varying temperature and atmospheric CO 2 concentration [CO 2 ] to quantify the uncertainty in soybean yield simulations in response to these factors. Models were first parametrized with high quality measured data from five contrasting environments. We found considerable variability among models in simulated yield responses to increasing temperature and [CO 2 ]. For example, under a + 3 °C temperature rise in our coolest location in Argentina, some models simulated that yield would reduce as much as 24%, while others simulated yield increases up to 29%. In our warmest location in Brazil, the models simulated a yield reduction ranging from a 38% decrease under + 3 °C temperature rise to no effect on yield. Similarly, when increasing [CO 2 ] from 360 to 540 ppm, the models simulated a yield increase that ranged from 6% to 31%. Model calibration did not reduce variability across models but had an unexpected effect on modifying yield responses to temperature for some of the models. The high uncertainty in model responses indicates the limited applicability of individual models for climate change food projections. However, the ensemble mean of simulations across models was an effective tool to reduce the high uncertainty in soybean yield simulations associated with individual models and their parametrization. Ensemble, ensemble mean yield responses to temperature and [CO 2 ] were similar to those reported from the literature. Our study is the first demonstration of the benefits achieved from using an ensemble of grain legume models for climate change food projections, and highlights that further soybean model development with experiments under elevated [CO 2 ] and temperature is needed to reduce the uncertainty from the individual models.

Agricultural Model Inter-comparison and Improvemen↗