BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Functional-structural plant models (FSPMs) simulate biological processes at different spatial scales. Methods exist for multiscale data representation and modification, but the advantages of using multiple scales in the dynamic aspects of FSPMs remain unclear. Results from multiscale models in various other areas of science that share fundamental modelling issues with FSPMs suggest that potential advantages do exist, and this study therefore aims to introduce an approach to multiscale modelling in FSPMs. METHODS: A three-part graph data structure and grammar is revisited, and presented with a conceptual framework for multiscale modelling. The framework is used for identifying roles, categorizing and describing scale-to-scale interactions, thus allowing alternative approaches to model development as opposed to correlation-based modelling at a single scale. Reverse information flow (from macro- to micro-scale) is catered for in the framework. The methods are implemented within the programming language XL. KEY RESULTS: Three example models are implemented using the proposed multiscale graph model and framework. The first illustrates the fundamental usage of the graph data structure and grammar, the second uses probabilistic modelling for organs at the fine scale in order to derive crown growth, and the third combines multiscale plant topology with ozone trends and metabolic network simulations in order to model juvenile beech stands under exposure to a toxic trace gas. CONCLUSIONS: The graph data structure supports data representation and grammar operations at multiple scales. The results demonstrate that multiscale modelling is a viable method in FSPM and an alternative to correlation-based modelling. Advantages and disadvantages of multiscale modelling are illustrated by comparisons with single-scale implementations, leading to motivations for further research in sensitivity analysis and run-time efficiency for these models.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Functional-structural plant models (FSPMs) simulate biological processes at different spatial scales. Methods exist for multiscale data representation and modification, but the advantages of using multiple scales in the dynamic aspects of FSPMs remain unclear. Results from multiscale models in various other areas of science that share fundamental modelling issues with FSPMs suggest that potential advantages do exist, and this study therefore aims to introduce an approach to multiscale modelling in FSPMs. METHODS: A three-part graph data structure and grammar is revisited, and presented with a conceptual framework for multiscale modelling. The framework is used for identifying roles, categorizing and describing scale-to-scale interactions, thus allowing alternative approaches to model development as opposed to correlation-based modelling at a single scale. Reverse information flow (from macro- to micro-scale) is catered for in the framework. The methods are implemented within the programming language XL. KEY RESULTS: Three example models are implemented using the proposed multiscale graph model and framework. The first illustrates the fundamental usage of the graph data structure and grammar, the second uses probabilistic modelling for organs at the fine scale in order to derive crown growth, and the third combines multiscale plant topology with ozone trends and metabolic network simulations in order to model juvenile beech stands under exposure to a toxic trace gas. CONCLUSIONS: The graph data structure supports data representation and grammar operations at multiple scales. The results demonstrate that multiscale modelling is a viable method in FSPM and an alternative to correlation-based modelling. Advantages and disadvantages of multiscale modelling are illustrated by comparisons with single-scale implementations, leading to motivations for further research in sensitivity analysis and run-time efficiency for these models.
Authors: Paul-Henry Cournède; Amélie Mathieu; François Houllier; Daniel Barthélémy; Philippe de Reffye Journal: Ann Bot Date: 2007-11-23 Impact factor: 4.357
Authors: Leah R Band; John A Fozard; Christophe Godin; Oliver E Jensen; Tony Pridmore; Malcolm J Bennett; John R King Journal: Plant Cell Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 11.277
Authors: Soualihou Soualiou; Zhiwei Wang; Weiwei Sun; Philippe de Reffye; Brian Collins; Gaëtan Louarn; Youhong Song Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 5.753