Upscaling modelled crop yields to regional scale: A case study using DSSAT for spring wheat on the Canadian prairies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Huffman, T., Qian, B., De Jong, R., Liu, J., Wang, H., McConkey, B., Brierley, T. and Yang, J. 2015. Upscaling modelled crop yields to regional scale: A case study using DSSAT for spring wheat on the Canadian prairies. Can. J. Soil Sci. 95: 49–61. Dynamic crop models are often operated at the plot or field scale. Upscaling is necessary when the process-based crop models are used for regional applications, such as forecasting regional crop yields and assessing climate change impacts on regional crop productivity. Dynamic crop models often require detailed input data for climate, soil and crop management; thus, their reliability may decrease at the regional scale as the uncertainty of simulation results might increase due to uncertainties in the input data. In this study, we modelled spring wheat yields at the level of numerous individual soils using the CERES-Wheat model in the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) and then aggregated the simulated yields from individual soils to regions where crop yields were reported. A comparison between the aggregated and the reported yields was performed to examine the potential of using dynamic crop models with individual soils in a region for the simulation of regional crop yields. The regionally aggregated simulated yields demonstrated reasonable agreement with the reported data, with a correlation coefficient of 0.71 and a root-mean-square error of 266 kg ha-1 (i.e., 15% of the average yield) over 40 regions on the Canadian prairies. Our conclusion is that aggregating simulated crop yields on individual soils with a crop model can be reliable for the estimation of regional crop yields. This demonstrated its potential as a useful approach for using crop models to assess climate change impacts on regional crop productivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".