|
|
Wolf, J., Ouattara, K., & Supit, I. (2015). Sowing rules for estimating rainfed yield potential of sorghum and maize in Burkina Faso. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 214-215, 208–218.
Abstract: To reduce the dependence on local expert knowledge, which is important for large-scale crop modelling studies, we analyzed sowing dates and rules for maize (Zea mays L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L)) at three locations in Burkina Faso with strongly decreasing rainfall amounts from south to north. We tested in total 22 methods to derive optimal sowing dates that result in highest water-limited yields and lowest yield variation in a reproducible and objective way. The WOFOST crop growth simulation model was used. We found that sowing dates that are based on local expert knowledge, may work quite well for Burkina Faso and for West Africa in general. However, when no a priori information is available, maize should be sown between Julian days 160 and 200, with application of the following criteria: (a) cumulative rainfall in the sowing window is >= 3 cm or available soil moisture content is >2 cm in the moderately dry central part of Burkina Faso, (b) cumulative rainfall in this period is >= 2 cm or available soil moisture content is >1 cm in the more humid regions in the southern part of Burkina Faso. Sorghum should also be sown between Julian days 160 and 200 with application of the following criteria: (a) in the dry northern part of Burkina Faso the long duration sorghum variety should be sown when cumulative rainfall is >2 cm in the sowing window, and the short duration sorghum variety should be sown later when cumulative rainfall is >= 3 cm, (b) in central Burkina Faso sowing should start when cumulative rainfall in this period is >= 2 cm or when available soil moisture content is >1 cm. Sowing date rules are shown to be generally crop and location specific and are not generic for West Africa. However, the required precision of the sowing rules appears to rapidly decrease with increasing duration and intensity of the rainy season. Sowing delay as a result of, for example, labour constraints, has a disastrous effect on rainfed maize and sorghum yields, particularly in the northern part of West Africa with low rainfall. Optimization of sowing dates can also be done by simulating crop yields in a time window of two months around a predefined sowing date. Using these optimized dates appears to result in a good estimate of the maximal mean rainfed yield level. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Challinor, A. J., Smith, M. S., & Thornton, P. (2013). Use of agro-climate ensembles for quantifying uncertainty and informing adaptation. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 170, 2–7.
Abstract: ► Introduces the special issue on Agricultural prediction using climate model ensembles. ► Discuss remaining scientific challenges. ► Develops distinction between projection- and utility-based ensemble modelling. ► Recommendations made RE modelling and the analysis and reporting of uncertainty. Significant progress has been made in the use of ensemble agricultural and climate modelling, and observed data, to project future productivity and to develop adaptation options. An increasing number of agricultural models are designed specifically for use with climate ensembles, and improved methods to quantify uncertainty in both climate and agriculture have been developed. Whilst crop–climate relationships are still the most common agricultural study of this sort, on-farm management, hydrology, pests, diseases and livestock are now also examined. This paper introduces all of these areas of progress, with more detail being found in the subsequent papers in the special issue. Remaining scientific challenges are discussed, and a distinction is developed between projection- and utility-based approaches to agro-climate ensemble modelling. Recommendations are made regarding the manner in which uncertainty is analysed and reported, and the way in which models and data are used to make inferences regarding the future. A key underlying principle is the use of models as tools from which information is extracted, rather than as competing attempts to represent reality.
|
|
|
|
Dumont, B., Basso, B., Leemans, V., Bodson, B., Destain, J. - P., & Destain, M. - F. (2015). A comparison of within-season yield prediction algorithms based on crop model behaviour analysis. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 204, 10–21.
Abstract: The development of methodologies for predicting crop yield, in real-time and in response to different agro-climatic conditions, could help to improve the farm management decision process by providing an analysis of expected yields in relation to the costs of investment in particular practices. Based on the use of crop models, this paper compares the ability of two methodologies to predict wheat yield (Triticum aestivum L.), one based on stochastically generated climatic data and the other on mean climate data. It was shown that the numerical experimental yield distribution could be considered as a log-normal distribution. This function is representative of the overall model behaviour. The lack of statistical differences between the numerical realisations and the logistic curve showed in turn that the Generalised Central Limit Theorem (GCLT) was applicable to our case study. In addition, the predictions obtained using both climatic inputs were found to be similar at the inter and intra-annual time-steps, with the root mean square and normalised deviation values below an acceptable level of 10% in 90% of the climatic situations. The predictive observed lead-times were also similar for both approaches. Given (i) the mathematical formulation of crop models, (ii) the applicability of the CLT and GLTC to the climatic inputs and model outputs, respectively, and (iii) the equivalence of the predictive abilities, it could be concluded that the two methodologies were equally valid in terms of yield prediction. These observations indicated that the Convergence in Law Theorem was applicable in this case study. For purely predictive purposes, the findings favoured an algorithm based on a mean climate approach, which needed far less time (by 300-fold) to run and converge on same predictive lead time than the stochastic approach. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Angulo, C., Rötter, R., Lock, R., Enders, A., Fronzek, S., & Ewert, F. (2013). Implication of crop model calibration strategies for assessing regional impacts of climate change in Europe. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 170, 32–46.
Abstract: Process-based crop simulation models are increasingly used in regional climate change impact studies, but little is known about the implications of different calibration strategies on simulated yields. This study aims to assess the importance of region-specific calibration of five important field crops (winter wheat, winter barley, potato, sugar beet and maize) across 25 member countries of the European Union (EU25). We examine three calibration strategies and their implications on spatial and temporal yield variability in response to climate change: (i) calculation of phenology parameters only, (ii) consideration of both phenology calibration and a yield correction factor and (iii) calibration of phenology and selected growth processes. The analysis is conducted for 533 climate zones, considering 24 years of observed yield data (1983-2006). The best performing strategy is used to estimate the impacts of climate change, increasing CO2 concentration and technology development on yields for the five crops across EU25, using seven climate change scenarios for the period 2041-2064. Simulations and calibrations are performed with the crop model LINTUL2 combined with a calibration routine implemented in the modelling interface LINTUL-FAST. The results show that yield simulations improve if growth parameters are considered in the calibration for individual regions (strategy 3); e.g. RMSE values for simulated winter wheat yield are 2.36, 1.10 and 0.70 Mg ha(-1) for calibration strategies 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The calibration strategy did not only affect the model simulations under reference climate but also the extent of the simulated climate change impacts. Applying the calibrated model for impact assessment revealed that climatic change alone will reduce crop yields. Consideration of the effects of increasing CO2 concentration and technology development resulted in yield increases for all crops except maize (i.e. the negative effects of climate change were outbalanced by the positive effects of CO2 and technology change), with considerable differences between scenarios and regions. Our simulations also suggest some increase in yield variability due to climate change which, however, is less pronounced than the differences among scenarios which are particularly large when the effects of CO2 concentration and technology development are considered. Our results stress the need for region-specific calibration of crop models used for Europe-wide assessments. Limitations of the considered strategies are discussed. We recommend that future work should focus on obtaining more comprehensive, high quality data with a finer resolution allowing application of improved strategies for model calibration that better account for spatial differences and changes over time in the growth and development parameters used in crop models. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Dono, G., Cortignani, R., Dell’Unto, D., Deligios, P., Doro, L., Lacetera, N., et al. (2016). Winners and losers from climate change in agriculture: Insights from a case study in the Mediterranean basin. Agricultural Systems, 147, 65–75.
Abstract: The Mediterranean region has always shown a marked inter-annual variability in seasonal weather, creating uncertainty in decisional processes of cultivation and livestock breeding that should not be neglected when modeling farmers’ adaptive responses. This is especially relevant when assessing the impact of climate change (CC), which modifies the atmospheric variability and generates new uncertainty conditions, and the possibility of adaptation of agriculture. Our analysis examines this aspect reconstructing the effects of inter-annual climate variability in a diversified farming district that well represents a wide range of rainfed and irrigated agricultural systems in the Mediterranean area. We used a Regional Atmospheric Modelling System and a weather generator to generate 150 stochastic years of the present and near future climate. Then, we implemented calibrated crop and livestock models to estimate the corresponding productive responses in the form of probability distribution functions (PDFs) under the two climatic conditions. We assumed these PDFs able to represent the expectations of farmers in a discrete stochastic programming (DSP) model that reproduced their economic behaviour under uncertainty conditions. The comparison of the results in the two scenarios provided an assessment of the impact of CC, also taking into account the possibility of adjustment allowed by present technologies and price regimes. The DSP model is built in blocks that represent the farm typologies operating in the study area, each one with its own resource endowment, decisional constraints and economic response. Under this latter aspect, major differences emerged among farm typologies and sub-zones of the study area. A crucial element of differentiation was water availability, since only irrigated C3 crops took full advantage from the fertilization effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Rainfed crop production was depressed by the expected reduction of spring rainfall associated to the higher temperatures. So, a dualism emerges between the smaller impact on crop production in the irrigated plain sub-zone, equipped with collective water networks and abundant irrigation resources, and the major negative impact in the hilly area, where these facilities and resources are absent. However intensive dairy farming was also negatively affected in terms of milk production and quality, and cattle mortality because of the increasing summer temperatures. This provides explicit guidance for addressing strategic adaptation policies and for framing farmers’ perception of CC, in order to help them to develop an awareness of the phenomena that are already in progress, which is a prerequisite for effective adaptation responses.
|
|
