Crop models and their use in assessing crop production and food security: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Agriculture is directly related to food security as it determines the global food supply. Research in agriculture to predict crop productivity and losses helps avoid high food demand with little supply and price spikes. Here, we review ten crop models and one intercomparison project used for simulating crop growth and productivity under various impacts from soil–crop–atmosphere interactions. The review outlines food security and production assessments using numerical models for maize, wheat, and rice production. A summary of reviewed studies shows the following: (1) model ensembles provide smaller modeling errors compared to single models, (2) single models show better results when coupled with other types of models, (3) the ten reviewed crop models had improvements over the years and can accurately predict crop growth and yield for most of the locations, management conditions, and genotypes tested, (4) APSIM and DSSAT are fast and reliable in assessing broader output variables, (5) AquaCrop is indicated to investigate water footprint, quality and use efficiency in rainfed and irrigated systems, (6) all models assess nitrogen dynamics and use efficiency efficiently, excluding AquaCrop and WOFOST, (7) JULES specifies in evaluating food security vulnerability, (8) ORYZA is the main crop model used to evaluate paddy rice production, (9) grain filling is usually assessed with APSIM, DAISY, and DSSAT, and (10) the ten crop models can be used as tools to evaluate food production, availability, and security.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".