|
|
Eitzinger, J., Thaler, S., Schmid, E., Strauss, F., Ferrise, R., Moriondo, M., et al. (2013). Sensitivities of crop models to extreme weather conditions during flowering period demonstrated for maize and winter wheat in Austria. J. Agric. Sci., 151(6), 813–835.
Abstract: The objective of the present study was to compare the performance of seven different, widely applied crop models in predicting heat and drought stress effects. The study was part of a recent suite of model inter-comparisons initiated at European level and constitutes a component that has been lacking in the analysis of sources of uncertainties in crop models used to study the impacts of climate change. There was a specific focus on the sensitivity of models for winter wheat and maize to extreme weather conditions (heat and drought) during the short but critical period of 2 weeks after the start of flowering. Two locations in Austria, representing different agro-climatic zones and soil conditions, were included in the simulations over 2 years, 2003 and 2004, exhibiting contrasting weather conditions. In addition, soil management was modified at both sites by following either ploughing or minimum tillage. Since no comprehensive field experimental data sets were available, a relative comparison of simulated grain yields and soil moisture contents under defined weather scenarios with modified temperatures and precipitation was performed for a 2-week period after flowering. The results may help to reduce the uncertainty of simulated crop yields to extreme weather conditions through better understanding of the models’ behaviour. Although the crop models considered (DSSAT, EPIC, WOFOST, AQUACROP, FASSET, HERMES and CROPSYST) mostly showed similar trends in simulated grain yields for the different weather scenarios, it was obvious that heat and drought stress caused by changes in temperature and/or precipitation for a short period of 2 weeks resulted in different grain yields simulated by different models. The present study also revealed that the models responded differently to changes in soil tillage practices, which affected soil water storage capacity.
|
|
|
|
Gabaldón-Leal, C., Lorite, I. J., Mínguez, M. I., Lizaso, J. I., Dosio, A., Sanchez, E., et al. (2015). Strategies for adapting maize to climate change and extreme temperatures in Andalusia, Spain. Clim. Res., 65, 159–173.
Abstract: Climate projections indicate that rising temperatures will affect summer crops in the southern Iberian Peninsula. The aim of this study was to obtain projections of the impacts of rising temperatures, and of higher frequency of extreme events on irrigated maize, and to evaluate some adaptation strategies. The study was conducted at several locations in Andalusia using the CERES-Maize crop model, previously calibrated/validated with local experimental datasets. The simulated climate consisted of projections from regional climate models from the ENSEMBLES project; these were corrected for daily temperature and precipitation with regard to the E-OBS observational dataset. These bias-corrected projections were used with the CERES-Maize model to generate future impacts. Crop model results showed a decrease in maize yield by the end of the 21st century from 6 to 20%, a decrease of up to 25% in irrigation water requirements, and an increase in irrigation water productivity of up to 22%, due to earlier maturity dates and stomatal closure caused by CO2 increase. When adaptation strategies combining earlier sowing dates and cultivar changes were considered, impacts were compensated, and maize yield increased up to 14%, compared with the baseline period (1981-2010), with similar reductions in crop irrigation water requirements. Effects of extreme maximum temperatures rose to 40% at the end of the 21st century, compared with the baseline. Adaptation resulted in an overall reduction in extreme T-max damages in all locations, with the exception of Granada, where losses were limited to 8%.
|
|
|
|
Hutchings, N. J., Özkan Gülzari, Ş., de Haan, M., & Sandars, D. (2018). How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production. Animal, 12(10), 2171–2180.
Abstract: The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DailyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet) x two soil types (sandy and clayey) x two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO(2)e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools.
|
|
|
|
Park, S. K., Sungmin, O., & Cassardo, C. (2017). Soil temperature response in Korea to a changing climate using a land surface model. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 53(4), 457–470.
Abstract: The land surface processes play an important role in weather and climate systems through its regulation of radiation, heat, water and momentum fluxes. Soil temperature (ST) is one of the most important parameters in the land surface processes; however, there are few extensive measurements of ST with a long time series in the world. According to the CLImatology of Parameters at the Surface (CLIPS) methodology, the output of a trusted Soil-Vegetation- Atmosphere Transfer (SVAT) scheme can be utilized instead of observations to investigate the regional climate of interest. In this study, ST in South Korea is estimated in a view of future climate using the output from a trusted SVAT scheme – the University of TOrino model of land Process Interaction with Atmosphere (UTOPIA), which is driven by a regional climate model. Here characteristic changes in ST are analyzed under the IPCC A2 future climate for 2046-2055 and 2091-2100, and are compared with those under the reference climate for 1996-2005. The UTOPIA results were validated using the observed ST in the reference climate, and the model proved to produce reasonable ST in South Korea. The UTOPIA simulations indicate that ST increases due to environmental change, especially in air temperature (AT), in the future climate. The increment of ST is proportional to that of AT except for winter. In wintertime, the ST variations are different from region to region mainly due to variations in snow cover, which keeps ST from significant changes by the climate change.
|
|
