AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Powered by AMiner. Clicking this button will take you away from SciOpen.
Home Plant Phenomics Article
Article Link
Cite
EndNote(RIS) BibTeX
Collect
Submit Manuscript
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Database/Software Article | Open Access

Coupling Plant Growth Models and Pest and Disease Models: An Interaction Structure Proposal, MIMIC

Houssem E. M. Triki1,2,3,4( ), Fabienne Ribeyre3,4, Fabrice Pinard4,5, Marc Jaeger1,2
CIRAD, UMR AMAP, F-34398 Montpellier, France
AMAP, University of Montpellier, CIRAD, CNRS, INRAE, IRD, Montpellier, France
CIRAD, UMR PHIM, F-34398 Montpellier, France
PHIM, University of Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, IRD, Montpellier, France
CIRAD, UMR PHIM, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya
Show Author Information

Abstract

Coupling plant growth model with pests and diseases (P&D) models, with consideration for the long-term feedback that occurs after the interaction, is still a challenging task nowadays. While a number of studies have examined various methodologies, none of them provides a generic frame able to host existing models and their codes without updating deeply their architecture. We developed MIMIC (Mediation Interface for Model Inner Coupling), an open-access framework/tool for this objective. MIMIC allows to couple plant growth and P&D models in a variety of ways. Users can experiment with various interaction configurations, ranging from a weak coupling that is mediated by the direct exchange of inputs and outputs between models to an advanced coupling that utilizes a third-party tool if the models’ data or operating cycles do not align. The users decide how the interactions operate, and the platform offers powerful tools to design key features of the interactions, mobilizing metaprogramming techniques. The proposed framework is demonstrated, implementing coffee berry borers’ attacks on Coffea arabica fruits. Observations conducted in a field in Sumatra (Indonesia) assess the coupled interaction model. Finally, we highlight the user-centric implementation characteristics of MIMIC, as a practical and convenient tool that requires minimal coding knowledge to use.

References

1

Brandmeyer JE, Karimi HA. Coupling methodologies for environmental models. Environ Model Softw. 2000;15(5):479–488.
Crossref Google Scholar
2

Argent RM, Voinov A, Maxwell T, Cuddy SM, Rahman JM, Seaton S, Vertessy RA, Braddock RD. Comparing modelling frameworks—A workshop approach. Environ Model Softw. 2006;21(7):895–910.
Crossref Google Scholar
3

Abel DJ, Kilby PJ, Davis JR. The systems integration problem. Int J Geogr Inf Syst. 1994;8(1):1–12.
Crossref Google Scholar
4

Louarn G, Song Y. Two decades of functional–structural plant modelling: Now addressing fundamental questions in systems biology and predictive ecology. Ann Bot. 2020;126(4):501–509.
Crossref Google Scholar
5

Donatelli M, Magarey RD, Bregaglio S, Willocquet L, Whish JPM, Savary S. Modelling the impacts of pests and diseases on agricultural systems. Agric Syst. 2017;155:213–224.
Crossref Google Scholar
6

Wang N, Jassogne L, van Asten PJA, Mukasa D, Wanyama I, Kagezi G, Giller KE. Evaluating coffee yield gaps and important biotic, abiotic, and management factors limiting coffee production in Uganda. Eur J Agron. 2015;63:1–11.
Crossref Google Scholar
7

Matovu R, Kangire A, Phiri N, Hakiza G, Kagezi G, Musoli P. Ecological factors influencing incidence and severity of coffee leaf rust and coffee berry disease in major arabica coffee growing districts of Uganda. Uganda J Agric Sci. 2013;14:87–100.
Google Scholar
8

Parmesan C, Hanley ME. Plants and climate change: Complexities and surprises. Ann Bot. 2015;116(6):849–864.
Crossref Google Scholar
9

Pham Y, Reardon-Smith K, Mushtaq S, Cockfield G. The impact of climate change and variability on coffee production: A systematic review. Clim Chang. 2019;156(4):609–630.
Crossref Google Scholar
10

Piao S, Liu Q, Chen A, Janssens IA, Fu Y, Dai J, Liu L, Lian X, Shen M, Zhu X. Plant phenology and global climate change: Current progresses and challenges. Glob Change Biol. 2019;25(6):1922–1940.
Crossref Google Scholar
11
Kagezi G, Kucel P, Egonyu JP, Kyamanywa S, Karungi JT, Pinard F, Jaramillo J, Van Asten P, Wagoire WW, Ngabirano H. A review of the status and progress in management research of the black coffee twig borer, Xylosandrus compactus (Eichhoff) in Uganda. Paper presented at: ASIC 2014.
12

Pinard F, Makune SE, Campagne P, Mwangi J. Spatial distribution of coffee wilt disease under Roguing and replanting conditions: A case study from Kaweri Estate in Uganda. Phytopathology. 2016;106(11):1291–1299.
Crossref Google Scholar
13

Luzinda H, Nelima M, Wabomba A, Kangire A, Musoli P, Musebe R. Farmer awareness, coping mechanisms and economic implications of coffee leaf rust disease in Uganda. Uganda J Agric Sci. 2016;16:207.
Crossref Google Scholar
14

Buddie AG, Crozier J, Rutherford MA, Flood J, Bridge PD. Population development within the coffee wilt pathogen Gibberella xylarioides reflects host-related divergence. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2015;142(2):291–304.
Crossref Google Scholar
15

Cerda R, Avelino J, Gary C, Tixier P, Lechevallier E, Allinne C. Primary and secondary yield losses caused by pests and diseases: Assessment and modeling in coffee. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):Article e0169133.
Crossref Google Scholar
16

Gaunt RE. The relationship between plant disease severity and yield. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 1995;33(1):119–144.
Crossref Google Scholar
17

Bar-Yam Y. General features of complex systems: Encyclopedia of life support systems. Oxford (UK): EOLSS UNESCO Publishers; 2002.
18

Tan M, Gou F, Stomph TJ, Wang J, Yin W, Zhang L, Chai Q, van der Werf W. Dynamic process-based modelling of crop growth and competitive water extraction in relay strip intercropping: Model development and application to wheat-maize intercropping. Field Crops Res. 2020;246:Article 107613.
Crossref Google Scholar
19
Sievänen R, Perttunen J, Nikinmaa E, Posada JM. Invited talk: Functional structural plant models—Case LIGNUM. Paper presented at: PMA 2009. Proceedings of the 2009 Third International Symposium on Plant Growth Modeling, Simulation, Visualization and Applications; 2009 Nov 9–13; Beijing, China.
Crossref
20
de Reffye P, Hu BG. Relevant qualitative and quantitative choices for building an efficient dynamic plant growth model: Greenlab case. Paper presented at: PMA 2003. Proceedings of the 2003 International Symposium on Plant Growth Modeling, Simulation, Visualization and their Application; 2003 Oct 13–16; Beijing, China.
21

Soualiou S, Wang Z, Sun W, de Reffye P, Collins B, Louarn G, Song Y. Functional–structural plant models mission in advancing crop science: Opportunities and prospects. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:Article 747142.
Crossref Google Scholar
22

Heuvelink E. Dry matter partitioning in tomato: Validation of a dynamic simulation model. Ann Bot. 1996;77(1):71–80.
Crossref Google Scholar
23

Rivals P. Essai Sur la croissance des arbres et Sur leurs systèmes de floraison (application aux espèces fruitières). J Agric Tradit Bot Appliquée. 1965;12(12):655–686.
Crossref Google Scholar
24

Barthélémy D, Caraglio Y. Plant architecture: A dynamic, multilevel and comprehensive approach to plant form, structure and ontogeny. Ann Bot. 2007;99(3):375–407.
Crossref Google Scholar
25

Yates KL, Bouchet PJ, Caley MJ, Mengersen K, Randin CF, Parnell S, Fielding AH, Bamford AJ, Ban S, Barbosa AM, et al. Outstanding challenges in the transferability of ecological models. Trends Ecol Evol. 2018;33(10):790–802.
Crossref Google Scholar
26

Lessler J, Cummings DAT. Mechanistic models of infectious disease and their impact on public health. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(5):415–422.
Crossref Google Scholar
27

Kirkeby C, Brookes VJ, Ward MP, Dürr S, Halasa T. A practical introduction to mechanistic modeling of disease transmission in veterinary science. Front Vet Sci. 2021;7:Article 546651.
Crossref Google Scholar
28

Siad SM, Iacobellis V, Zdruli P, Gioia A, Stavi I, Hoogenboom G. A review of coupled hydrologic and crop growth models. Agric Water Manag. 2019;224:Article 105746.
Crossref Google Scholar
29

Kropff MJ, Teng PS, Rabbinge R. The challenge of linking pest and crop models. Agric Syst. 1995;49(4):413–434.
Crossref Google Scholar
30

Vezy R, le Maire G, Christina M, Georgiou S, Imbach P, Hidalgo HG, Alfaro EJ, Blitz-Frayret C, Charbonnier F, Lehner P, et al. DynACof: A process-based model to study growth, yield and ecosystem services of coffee agroforestry systems. Environ Model Softw. 2020;124:Article 104609.
Crossref Google Scholar
31

Leclerc G, Bommel P, Motisi N, Vezy R, Treminio E, Avelino J. Coffee leaf rust (Hemeleia vastatrix) risk management in Central America: Contribution of remote interactive simulations. Agron Environ Sociétés. 2021;11(2).
Crossref Google Scholar
32
Pradal C, Dufour-Kowalski S, Boudon F, Donès N. The architecture of OpenAlea: A visual programming and component based software for plant modeling. Paper presented at: FSPM 2007. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Functional-Structural Plant Models; 4–9 Nov 2007; Napier, New Zealand.
33

Pradal C, Dufour-Kowalski S, Boudon F, Fournier C, Godin C. OpenAlea: A visual programming and component-based software platform for plant modelling. Funct Plant Biol. 2008;35(10):751–760.
Crossref Google Scholar
34
Qi R, Cournede P-H, Lecoustre R, de Reffye P. Tri-trophic ecosystem oil palm-pests-auxiliaries: Ⅰ. Modeling and simulation. Paper presented at: PMA 2009. Proceedings of the 2009 Third Plant Growth Modeling, Simulation, Visualization, and Applications; 2009 Nov 9–13; Beijing, China.
Crossref
35

Motisi N, Bommel P, Leclerc G, Robin MH, Aubertot JN, Butron AA, Merle I, Treminio E, Avelino J. Improved forecasting of coffee leaf rust by qualitative modeling: Design and expert validation of the ExpeRoya model. Agric Syst. 2022;197:Article 103352.
Crossref Google Scholar
36

Le Chevalier V, Jaeger M, Mei X, Cournède P-H. Simulation and visualisation of functional landscapes: Effects of the water resource competition between plants. J Comput Sci Technol. 2007;22(6):835–845.
Crossref Google Scholar
37

Zeigler BP. DEVS representation of dynamical systems: Event-based intelligent control. Proc IEEE. 1989;77(1):72–80.
Crossref Google Scholar
38

Garin G, Fournier C, Andrieu B, Houlès V, Robert C, Pradal C. A modelling framework to simulate foliar fungal epidemics using functional–structural plant models. Ann Bot. 2014;114(4):795–812.
Crossref Google Scholar
39

Reuillon R, Leclaire M, and Rey-Coyrehourcq S, OpenMOLE, a workflow engine specifically tailored for the distributed exploration of simulation models. Future Gener Comp Syst. 2013;29(8):1981–1990.
Crossref Google Scholar
40
de Reffye P, Heuvelink E, Guo Y, Hu B-G, Zhang B-G. Coupling process-based models and plant architectural models: A key issue for simulating crop production. In: Cao W, White JW, Wang E, editors. Crop modeling and decision support. Berlin (Germany): Springer; 2009. p. 130–147.
Crossref
41
Cournède P-H, Guyard T, Bayol B, Griffon S, de Coligny F, Borriane P, Jaeger M, de Reffye P. A forest growth simulator based on functional-structural modelling of individual trees. Paper presented at: PMA 2009. Proceedings of the 2009 Third International Symposium on Plant Growth Modeling, Simulation, Visualization and Applications; 2009 Nov 9–13; Beijing, China.
Crossref
42

Kang M, Hua J, Wang X, de Reffye P, Jaeger M, Akaffou S. Estimating sink parameters of stochastic functional-structural plant models using organic series-continuous and rhythmic development. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1688.
Crossref Google Scholar
43

Letort V, Sabatier S, Okoma MP, Jaeger M, de Reffye P. Internal trophic pressure, a regulator of plant development? Insights from a stochastic functional–structural plant growth model applied to Coffea trees. Ann Bot. 2020;126(4):687–699.
Crossref Google Scholar
44

Cournède P-H, Kang MZ, Mathieu A, Barczi JF, Yan HP, Hu BG, de Reffye P. Structural factorization of plants to compute their functional and architectural growth. SIMULATION. 2006;82(7):427–438.
Crossref Google Scholar
45

Rodríguez D, Cure JR, Gutierrez AP, Cotes JM, Cantor F. A coffee agroecosystem model: Ⅱ. Dynamics of coffee berry borer. Ecol Model. 2013;248:203–214.
Crossref Google Scholar
46
Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J. Design patterns: Elements of reusable object-oriented software. London (UK): Pearson Education; 1994.
47
Tendeloo YV, Vangheluwe H. Discrete event system specification modeling and simulation. Paper presented at: WSC 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Winter Simulation Conference; 2018 Dec 9–12; Gothenburg, Sweden.
Crossref
48

Damon A. A review of the biology and control of the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Bull Entomol Res. 2000;90(6):453–465.
Crossref Google Scholar
49

Jaramillo J, Chabi-Olaye A, Kamonjo C, Jaramillo A, Vega FE, Poehling HM, Borgemeister C. Thermal tolerance of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei: Predictions of climate change impact on a tropical insect pest. PLoS One. 2009;4(8):Article e6487.
Crossref Google Scholar
50

Dufour BP, Kerana IW, Ribeyre F. Population dynamics of Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) according to the phenology of Coffea arabica L. in equatorial conditions of North Sumatra. Crop Prot. 2021;146:Article 105639.
Crossref Google Scholar
51
Ben-Kiki O, Evans C. YAML Ain’t Markup Language (YAMLTM) Version 1.2.
52

Bezanson J, Edelman A, Karpinski S, Shah VB. Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing. SIAM Rev. 2017;59(1):65–98.
Crossref Google Scholar
53

Perkel JM. Julia: Come for the syntax, stay for the speed. Nature. 2019;572(7767):141–142.
Crossref Google Scholar
54

Lorenz EN. Deterministic nonperiodic flow. J Atmos Sci. 1963;20(2):130–141.
Crossref Google Scholar
55

Sedgwick P. Retrospective cohort studies: Advantages and disadvantages. BMJ. 2014;348:Article g1072.
Crossref Google Scholar
56

Whish JPM, Herrmann NI, White NA, Moore AD, Kriticos DJ. Integrating pest population models with biophysical crop models to better represent the farming system. Environ Model Softw. 2015;72:418–425.
Crossref Google Scholar
57

Zeigler BP, Muzy A. From discrete event simulation to discrete event specified systems (DEVS). IFAC-Pap. 2017;50(1):3039–3044.
Crossref Google Scholar
58

Bergez J-E, Chabrier P, Gary C, Jeuffroy MH, Makowski D, Quesnel G, Ramat E, Raynal H, Rousse N, Wallach D, et al. An open platform to build, evaluate and simulate integrated models of farming and agro-ecosystems. Environ Model Softw. 2013;39:39–49.
Crossref Google Scholar
59
Chabrier P, Garcia F, Martin-Clouaire R, Quesnel G, Raynal H. Toward a simulation modeling platform for studying cropping systems management: The record project. Paper presented at: MODSIM 2007. Proceedings of the International Congress on Modelling and Simulation; 2007 Dec 10–13; Christchurch, New Zealand.
Plant Phenomics
Volume 5,
2023
Article number: 0077
DOI: 10.34133/plantphenomics.0077
Cite this article:
Triki HEM, Ribeyre F, Pinard F, et al. Coupling Plant Growth Models and Pest and Disease Models: An Interaction Structure Proposal, MIMIC. Plant Phenomics, 2023, 5: 0077. https://doi.org/10.34133/plantphenomics.0077

154

Views

3

Crossref

2

Web of Science

3

Scopus

0

CSCD

Altmetrics
Received: 31 March 2023
Accepted: 10 July 2023
Published: 04 August 2023
© 2023 Houssem E. M. Triki et al. Exclusive licensee Nanjing Agricultural University. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0).
Return