Search

Your search keyword '"Texas A and M AgriLife Research"' showing total 17 results

Search Constraints

Start Over You searched for: Author "Texas A and M AgriLife Research" Remove constraint Author: "Texas A and M AgriLife Research"
17 results on '"Texas A and M AgriLife Research"'

Search Results

1. There is a growing realization that the complexity of model ensemble studies depends not only on the models used but also on the experience and approach used by modelers to calibrate and validate results, which remain a source of uncertainty. Here, we applied a multi-criteria decision-making method to investigate the rationale applied by modelers in a model ensemble study where 12 process-based different biogeochemical model types were compared across five successive calibration stages. The modelers shared a common level of agreement about the importance of the variables used to initialize their models for calibration. However, we found inconsistency among modelers when judging the importance of input variables across different calibration stages. The level of subjective weighting attributed by modelers to calibration data decreased sequentially as the extent and number of variables provided increased. In this context, the perceived importance attributed to variables such as the fertilization rate, irrigation regime, soil texture, pH, and initial levels of soil organic carbon and nitrogen stocks was statistically different when classified according to model types. The importance attributed to input variables such as experimental duration, gross primary production, and netecosystem exchange varied significantly according to the length of the modeler’s experience. We argue that the gradual access to input data across the five calibration stages negatively influenced the consistency of the interpretations made by the modelers, with cognitive bias in 'trial-and-error' calibration routines. Our study highlights that overlooking human and social attributes is critical in the outcomes of modeling and model intercomparison studies. While complexity of the processes captured in the model algorithms and parameterization is important, we contend that (1) the modeler’s assumptions on the extent to which parameters should be altered and (2) modeler perceptions of the importance of model parameters are just as critical in obtaining a quality model calibration as numerical or analytical details

2. Climate change impact and adaptation for wheat protein

3. Registration of tropical populations of maize selected in parallel for early flowering time across the United States

4. Global wheat production with 1.5 and 2.0°C above pre‐industrial warming

5. A taxonomy-based approach to shed light on the babel of mathematical models for rice simulation

6. The Hot Serial Cereal Experiment for modeling wheat response to temperature: Field experiments and AgMIP-Wheat multi-model simulations

7. Multimodel ensembles improve predictions of crop–environment–management interactions

8. The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions

9. Quantitative models of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) ticks: historical review and synthesis

10. Causes of variation among rice models in yield response to CO2 examined with Free-Air CO2 Enrichment and growth chamber experiments

11. Similar estimates of temperature impacts on global wheat yield by three independent methods

12. Global Research Alliance on agricultural greenhouse gases - benchmark and ensemble crop and grassland model estimates

13. Inter-comparison of wheat models to identify knowledge gaps and improve process modeling

14. Land-atmosphere coupling in EURO-CORDEX evaluation experiments

15. Residual correlation and ensemble modelling to improve crop and grassland models

16. Improving rice models for more reliable prediction of responses of rice yield to CO2 and temperature elevation

17. Functional gene categories differentiate maize leaf drought-related microbial epiphytic communities.

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources