| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–15] |
|
Tao, F., Zhang, S., Zhang, Z., & Rötter, R. P. (2014). Maize growing duration was prolonged across China in the past three decades under the combined effects of temperature, agronomic management, and cultivar shift. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20(12), 3686–3699.
Abstract: Maize phenology observations at 112 national agro-meteorological experiment stations across China spanning the years 1981-2009 were used to investigate the spatiotemporal changes of maize phenology, as well as the relations to temperature change and cultivar shift. The greater scope of the dataset allows us to estimate the effects of temperature change and cultivar shift on maize phenology more precisely. We found that maize sowing date advanced significantly at 26.0% of stations mainly for spring maize in northwestern, southwestern and northeastern China, although delayed significantly at 8.0% of stations mainly in northeastern China and the North China Plain (NCP). Maize maturity date delayed significantly at 36.6% of stations mainly in the northeastern China and the NCP. As a result, duration of maize whole growing period (GPw) was prolonged significantly at 41.1% of stations, although mean temperature (Tmean) during GPw increased at 72.3% of stations, significantly at 19.6% of stations, and Tmean was negatively correlated with the duration of GPw at 92.9% of stations and significantly at 42.9% of stations. Once disentangling the effects of temperature change and cultivar shift with an approach based on accumulated thermal development unit, we found that increase in temperature advanced heading date and maturity date and reduced the duration of GPw at 81.3%, 82.1% and 83.9% of stations on average by 3.2, 6.0 and 3.5 days/decade, respectively. By contrast, cultivar shift delayed heading date and maturity date and prolonged the duration of GPw at 75.0%, 94.6% and 92.9% of stations on average by 1.5, 6.5 and 6.5 days/decade, respectively. Our results suggest that maize production is adapting to ongoing climate change by shift of sowing date and adoption of cultivars with longer growing period. The spatiotemporal changes of maize phenology presented here can further guide the development of adaptation options for maize production in near future.
|
|
Bassu, S., Brisson, N., Durand, J. - L., Boote, K., Lizaso, J., Jones, J. W., et al. (2014). How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20(7), 2301–2320.
Abstract: Potential consequences of climate change on crop production can be studied using mechanistic crop simulation models. While a broad variety of maize simulation models exist, it is not known whether different models diverge on grain yield responses to changes in climatic factors, or whether they agree in their general trends related to phenology, growth, and yield. With the goal of analyzing the sensitivity of simulated yields to changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO2 ], we present the largest maize crop model intercomparison to date, including 23 different models. These models were evaluated for four locations representing a wide range of maize production conditions in the world: Lusignan (France), Ames (USA), Rio Verde (Brazil) and Morogoro (Tanzania). While individual models differed considerably in absolute yield simulation at the four sites, an ensemble of a minimum number of models was able to simulate absolute yields accurately at the four sites even with low data for calibration, thus suggesting that using an ensemble of models has merit. Temperature increase had strong negative influence on modeled yield response of roughly -0.5 Mg ha(-1) per °C. Doubling [CO2 ] from 360 to 720 μmol mol(-1) increased grain yield by 7.5% on average across models and the sites. That would therefore make temperature the main factor altering maize yields at the end of this century. Furthermore, there was a large uncertainty in the yield response to [CO2 ] among models. Model responses to temperature and [CO2 ] did not differ whether models were simulated with low calibration information or, simulated with high level of calibration information.
|
|
Webber, H., Martre, P., Asseng, S., Kimball, B., White, J., Ottman, M., et al. (2017). Canopy temperature for simulation of heat stress in irrigated wheat in a semi-arid environment: A multi-model comparison. Field Crops Research, 202, 21–35.
Abstract: Even brief periods of high temperatures occurring around flowering and during grain filling can severely reduce grain yield in cereals. Recently, ecophysiological and crop models have begun to represent such phenomena. Most models use air temperature (Tair) in their heat stress responses despite evidence that crop canopy temperature (Tc) better explains grain yield losses. Tc can deviate significantly from Tair based on climatic factors and the crop water status. The broad objective of this study was to evaluate whether simulation of Tc improves the ability of crop models to simulate heat stress impacts on wheat under irrigated conditions. Nine process-based models, each using one of three broad approaches (empirical, EMP; energy balance assuming neutral atmospheric stability, EBN; and energy balance correcting for the atmospheric stability conditions, EBSC) to simulate Tc, simulated grain yield under a range of temperature conditions. The models varied widely in their ability to reproduce the measured Tc with the commonly used EBN models performing much worse than either EMP or EBSC. Use of Tc to account for heat stress effects did improve simulations compared to using only Tair to a relatively minor extent, but the models that additionally use Tc on various other processes as well did not have better yield simulations. Models that simulated yield well under heat stress had varying skill in simulating Tc. For example, the EBN models had very poor simulations of Tc but performed very well in simulating grain yield. These results highlight the need to more systematically understand and model heat stress events in wheat.
Keywords: Crop model comparison; Canopy temperature; Heat stress; Wheat
|
|
Tao, F., Zhang, Z., Zhang, S., Rötter, R. P., Shi, W., Xiao, D., et al. (2016). Historical data provide new insights into response and adaptation of maize production systems to climate change/variability in China. Field Crops Research, 185, 1–11.
Abstract: Extensive studies had been conducted to investigate the impacts of climate change on maize growth and yield in recent decades; however, the dynamics of crop husbandry in response and adaptation to climate change were not taken into account. Based on field observations spanning from 1981 to 2009 at 167 agricultural meteorological stations across China, we found that solar radiation and temperature over the observed maize growth period had decreasing trends during 1981-2009, and maize yields were positively correlated with these climate variables in major production regions. The decreasing trends in solar radiation and temperature during maize growth period were mainly ascribed to the adoption of late maturity cultivars with longer reproductive growth period (RGP). The adoption of late maturing cultivars with longer RGP contributed substantially to grain yield increase during the last three decades. The climate trends during maize growth period varied among different production areas. During 1981-2009, decreases in mean temperature, precipitation and solar radiation over maize growth period jointly reduced yield most by 13.2-17.3% in southwestern China, by contrast in northwestern China increases in mean temperature, precipitation and solar radiation jointly increased yield most by 12.9-14.4%. Our findings highlight that the adaptations of maize production system to climate change through shifts of sowing date and genotypes are underway and should be taken into accounted when evaluating climate change impacts. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., et al. (2012). Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models. Field Crops Research, 133, 23–36.
Abstract: In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|