Monte Carlo-based calibration and uncertainty analysis of a coupled plant growth and hydrological model

46Citations
Citations of this article
97Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Computer simulations are widely used to support decision making and planning in the agriculture sector. On the one hand, many plant growth models use simplified hydrological processes and structures - for example, by the use of a small number of soil layers or by the application of simple water flow approaches. On the other hand, in many hydrological models plant growth processes are poorly represented. Hence, fully coupled models with a high degree of process representation would allow for a more detailed analysis of the dynamic behaviour of the soil-plant interface. We coupled two of such high-process-oriented independent models and calibrated both models simultaneously. The catchment modelling framework (CMF) simulated soil hydrology based on the Richards equation and the van Genuchten-Mualem model of the soil hydraulic properties. CMF was coupled with the plant growth modelling framework (PMF), which predicts plant growth on the basis of radiation use efficiency, degree days, water shortage and dynamic root biomass allocation. The Monte Carlo-based generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) method was applied to parameterize the coupled model and to investigate the related uncertainty of model predictions. Overall, 19 model parameters (4 for CMF and 15 for PMF) were analysed through 2 × 106 model runs randomly drawn from a uniform distribution. The model was applied to three sites with different management in Müncheberg (Germany) for the simulation of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in a cross-validation experiment. Field observations for model evaluation included soil water content and the dry matter of roots, storages, stems and leaves. The shape parameter of the retention curve n was highly constrained, whereas other parameters of the retention curve showed a large equifinality. We attribute this slightly poorer model performance to missing leaf senescence, which is currently not implemented in PMF. The most constrained parameters for the plant growth model were the radiation-use efficiency and the base temperature. Cross validation helped to identify deficits in the model structure, pointing out the need for including agricultural management options in the coupled model. © Author(s) 2014.

Figures

  • Table 1. Parameter ranges of the Monte Carlo simulation for the coupled CMF–PMF for site 1 in Müncheberg. PAR stands for photosynthetically active radiation. Minimal to maximal input is the range for the GLUE analysis, while the output is the constrained range of the observed behavioural parameter sets (cf. Figs. 2 and 3). Uncertainty reduction in the output over 30 % is reflected in bold type.
  • Fig. 1. Parameter uncertainty and interaction. The scatter plots show parameter interaction and correlations for behavioural model runs coloured from yellow to red for NSE> 0 at site 1 in Müncheberg for the coupled CMF–PMF model. PMF parameters are given on the x axis, and CMF parameters are plotted on the y axis. The density distributions at the top and to the right depict the parameter uncertainty. NSE are reported as mean, equally weighted NSE for soil moisture, root, stem and leaves, as well as storage dry matter.
  • Fig. 2. Probabilistic time series for the simulation of soil moisture with behavioural (NSE> 0, bias<±10 % soil moisture and R2 > 0.3) CMF–PMF model runs at site 1 for three soil depths. Inserts: the likelihood functions quantify the median of the prediction range.
  • Fig. 3. Probabilistic time series for the simulation of plant dry matter with behavioural (NSE> 0, bias<±500 kg ha−1 plant dry matter and R2 > 0.3) CMF–PMF model runs at site 1. Inserts: the likelihood functions quantify the median of the prediction range. Note differences in the scale of the y axis.
  • Fig. 4. Range of behavioural parameter sets considering all three threshold criteria of the CMF–PMF model for the three sites in Müncheberg. Results are shown for the same set of model input parameters as in Fig. 1.
  • Fig. 5. Cross validation of soil moisture prediction with uncertainty boundaries. Grey-shaded sites are calibrated. Black dots are observed values, and the red dashed line is the median of the behavioural boundary condition (NSE> 0, bias<±10 % soil moisture and R2 > 0.3). The yellow area is the 95 % probability range of the simulation, and the orange area the 50 % probability range.
  • Fig. 6. Cross validation of stem and leaves prediction with uncertainty boundaries. Grey-shaded sites are calibrated. Black dots are observed values, and the red dashed line is the median of the behavioural boundary condition (NSE> 0, bias<±500 kg ha−1 plant dry matter and R2 > 0.3). The yellow area is the 95 % probability range of the simulation, and the orange area the 50 % probability range.

References Powered by Scopus

CLOSED-FORM EQUATION FOR PREDICTING THE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF UNSATURATED SOILS.

22323Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I - A discussion of principles

18981Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

On the validation of models

3978Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash-Sutcliffe and Kling-Gupta efficiency scores

790Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

SPOTting model parameters using a ready-made python package

146Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Setting up a hydrological model of Alberta: Data discrimination analyses prior to calibration

75Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Houska, T., Multsch, S., Kraft, P., Frede, H. G., & Breuer, L. (2014). Monte Carlo-based calibration and uncertainty analysis of a coupled plant growth and hydrological model. Biogeosciences, 11(7), 2069–2082. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2069-2014

Readers over time

‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘250481216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 49

75%

Researcher 12

18%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

5%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

2%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Engineering 26

39%

Environmental Science 19

29%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 14

21%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7

11%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0