IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v242y2012icp92-104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Generic response functions to simulate climate-based processes in models for the development of airborne fungal crop pathogens

Author

Listed:
  • Caubel, J.
  • Launay, M.
  • Lannou, C.
  • Brisson, N.

Abstract

Climate variability influences the development of crop diseases, including through an effect on crop structure and hence on the microclimate. In a context of climate change, emerging and/or more aggressive plant diseases are thus expected. It is therefore critical to understand, anticipate and quantify the effects of climate variability and climate change on numerous host plant/pathogen systems. For this purpose, an homogeneous and integrative approach to the disease dynamics of all airborne fungal pathogens affecting crops is necessary. It enables to identify when plant–climate–pathogen interactions lead to the onset or development of one or more pathosystem(s) at a local or regional scale. We therefore describe here the conceptual design of a mechanistic model of foliar disease dynamics coupled with a process-based crop model. This conceptual design proposes generic response functions based on existing response functions in published models to simulate climate-based epidemiological processes. The dispersal and deposition, infection, latency and secondary inoculum production processes are the modules in this generic model. Input variables are either climate-related (rain, wind, air temperature, and air relative humidity) or plant-related (canopy relative humidity, canopy temperature, host surface wetness, plant phenological stage, plant and tissue age, organ surfaces, plant nitrogen content and varietal resistance). We evaluated the general applicability of the conceptual design using a number of airborne fungal plant pathogens with contrasted biological behaviours. We successfully completed proof-of-concept tests, during which disease models for two airborne fungal pathogens, Plasmopara viticola and Puccinia triticina, were coupled with the grapevine and wheat versions of the generic crop model STICS. This revealed the ability of our conceptual design to be transposed into functional models and then coupled with a classical crop model. This conceptual design could be a valuable tool for agronomists who might now be wanting to consider biotic stresses as additional constraints in their crop models.

Suggested Citation

  • Caubel, J. & Launay, M. & Lannou, C. & Brisson, N., 2012. "Generic response functions to simulate climate-based processes in models for the development of airborne fungal crop pathogens," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 92-104.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:242:y:2012:i:c:p:92-104
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.05.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380012002335
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.05.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scherm, H. & Yang, X. B., 1999. "Risk assessment for sudden death syndrome of soybean in the north-central United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 301-310, March.
    2. Kleijnen, Jack P. C. & Sargent, Robert G., 2000. "A methodology for fitting and validating metamodels in simulation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 14-29, January.
    3. Pogson, Mark, 2011. "Modelling Miscanthus yields with low resolution input data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(23), pages 3849-3853.
    4. Rossi, Vittorio & Caffi, Tito & Giosuè, Simona & Bugiani, Riccardo, 2008. "A mechanistic model simulating primary infections of downy mildew in grapevine," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 212(3), pages 480-491.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Landry, C. & Bonnot, F. & Ravigné, V. & Carlier, J. & Rengifo, D. & Vaillant, J. & Abadie, C., 2017. "A foliar disease simulation model to assist the design of new control methods against black leaf streak disease of banana," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 359(C), pages 383-397.
    2. Silvia Traversari & Sonia Cacini & Angelica Galieni & Beatrice Nesi & Nicola Nicastro & Catello Pane, 2021. "Precision Agriculture Digital Technologies for Sustainable Fungal Disease Management of Ornamental Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Majid Galoie & Fouad Kilanehei & Artemis Motamedi & Mohammad Nazari-Sharabian, 2021. "Converting Daily Rainfall Data to Sub-daily—Introducing the MIMD Method," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(11), pages 3861-3871, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katarzyna Growiec & Jakub Growiec & Bogumil Kaminski, 2017. "Social Network Structure and The Trade-Off Between Social Utility and Economic Performance," KAE Working Papers 2017-026, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    2. Kleijnen, Jack P. C., 2005. "An overview of the design and analysis of simulation experiments for sensitivity analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(2), pages 287-300, July.
    3. Acharki, Naoufal & Bertoncello, Antoine & Garnier, Josselin, 2023. "Robust prediction interval estimation for Gaussian processes by cross-validation method," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    4. Giorgio Fagiolo & Mattia Guerini & Francesco Lamperti & Alessio Moneta & Andrea Roventini, 2017. "Validation of Agent-Based Models in Economics and Finance," LEM Papers Series 2017/23, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    5. H. Christopher Frey & Sumeet R. Patil, 2002. "Identification and Review of Sensitivity Analysis Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 553-578, June.
    6. Xuefei Lu & Alessandro Rudi & Emanuele Borgonovo & Lorenzo Rosasco, 2020. "Faster Kriging: Facing High-Dimensional Simulators," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 233-249, January.
    7. Tunali, S. & Batmaz, I., 2003. "A metamodeling methodology involving both qualitative and quantitative input factors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(2), pages 437-450, October.
    8. Landry, C. & Bonnot, F. & Ravigné, V. & Carlier, J. & Rengifo, D. & Vaillant, J. & Abadie, C., 2017. "A foliar disease simulation model to assist the design of new control methods against black leaf streak disease of banana," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 359(C), pages 383-397.
    9. Jack P. C. Kleijnen & Susan M. Sanchez & Thomas W. Lucas & Thomas M. Cioppa, 2005. "State-of-the-Art Review: A User’s Guide to the Brave New World of Designing Simulation Experiments," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 263-289, August.
    10. Jin, Ding & Thube, Sneha Dattatraya & Hedtrich, Johannes & Henning, Christian & Delzeit, Ruth, 2019. "A Baseline Calibration Procedure for CGE models: An Application for DART," Conference papers 333057, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. Robertson, Joseph J. & Polly, Ben J. & Collis, Jon M., 2015. "Reduced-order modeling and simulated annealing optimization for efficient residential building utility bill calibration," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 169-177.
    12. Richard E. Nance & Robert G. Sargent, 2002. "Perspectives on the Evolution of Simulation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 50(1), pages 161-172, February.
    13. Durieux, Severine & Pierreval, Henri, 2004. "Regression metamodeling for the design of automated manufacturing system composed of parallel machines sharing a material handling resource," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 21-30, May.
    14. Kleijnen, Jack P.C., 2009. "Kriging metamodeling in simulation: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(3), pages 707-716, February.
    15. Ziesmer, Johannes & Jin, Ding & Mukashov, Askar & Henning, Christian, 2023. "Integrating fundamental model uncertainty in policy analysis," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PB).
    16. Kleijnen, J.P.C. & Sanchez, S.M. & Lucas, T.W. & Cioppa, T.M., 2003. "A User's Guide to the Brave New World of Designing Simulation Experiments," Discussion Paper 2003-1, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    17. Kamiński, Bogumił, 2015. "A method for the updating of stochastic kriging metamodels," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(3), pages 859-866.
    18. Strang, Kenneth David, 2012. "Importance of verifying queue model assumptions before planning with simulation software," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 493-504.
    19. Johannes Ziesmer & Ding Jin & Sneha D Thube & Christian Henning, 2023. "A Dynamic Baseline Calibration Procedure for CGE models," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 61(4), pages 1331-1368, April.
    20. Jin, Ding & Hedtrich, Johannes & Henning, Christian, 2018. "Applying Meta modeling for extended CGE-modeling: Sample techniques and potential application," Conference papers 332947, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:242:y:2012:i:c:p:92-104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.