| Records |
| Author |
Hoffmann, M.P.; Haakana, M.; Asseng, S.; Höhn, J.G.; Palosuo, T.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Fronzek, S.; Ewert, F.; Gaiser, T.; Kassie, B.T.; Paff, K.; Rezaei, E.E.; Rodríguez, A.; Semenov, M.; Srivastava, A.K.; Stratonovitch, P.; Tao, F.; Chen, Y.; Rötter, R.P. |
| Title |
How does inter-annual variability of attainable yield affect the magnitude of yield gaps for wheat and maize? An analysis at ten sites |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal  |
Agric. Syst. |
| Volume |
159 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
199-208 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
Highlights • The larger simulated attainable yield for a specific crop season, the larger the yield gap. • Average size of the yield gap is not affected by the inter-annual variability of attainable yield. • Technology levels (resource input and accessibility) determine average yield gap. • To reduce yield gaps in rainfed environments, farmers need to improve season-specific crop management. Abstract Provision of food security in the face of increasing global food demand requires narrowing of the gap between actual farmer’s yield and maximum attainable yield. So far, assessments of yield gaps have focused on average yield over 5–10 years, but yield gaps can vary substantially between crop seasons. In this study we hypothesized that climate-induced inter-annual yield variability and associated risk is a major barrier for farmers to invest, i.e. increase inputs to narrow the yield gap. We evaluated the importance of inter-annual attainable yield variability for the magnitude of the yield gap by utilizing data for wheat and maize at ten sites representing some major food production systems and a large range of climate and soil conditions across the world. Yield gaps were derived from the difference of simulated attainable yields and regional recorded farmer yields for 1981 to 2010. The size of the yield gap did not correlate with the amplitude of attainable yield variability at a site, but was rather associated with the level of available resources such as labor, fertilizer and plant protection inputs. For the sites in Africa, recorded yield reached only 20% of the attainable yield, while for European, Asian and North American sites it was 56–84%. Most sites showed that the higher the attainable yield of a specific season the larger was the yield gap. This significant relationship indicated that farmers were not able to take advantage of favorable seasonal weather conditions. To reduce yield gaps in the different environments, reliable seasonal weather forecasts would be required to allow farmers to manage each seasonal potential, i.e. overcoming season-specific yield limitations. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
phase 2+ |
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
0308521x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5185 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Fronzek, S.; Pirttioja, N.; Carter, T.R.; Bindi, M.; Hoffmann, H.; Palosuo, T.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Tao, F.; Trnka, M.; Acutis, M.; Asseng, S.; Baranowski, P.; Basso, B.; Bodin, P.; Buis, S.; Cammarano, D.; Deligios, P.; Destain, M.-F.; Dumont, B.; Ewert, F.; Ferrise, R.; Francois, L.; Gaiser, T.; Hlavinka, P.; Jacquemin, I.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Kollas, C.; Krzyszczaki, J.; Lorite, I.J.; Minet, J.; Ines Minguez, M.; Montesino, M.; Moriondo, M.; Mueller, C.; Nendel, C.; Ozturk, I.; Perego, A.; Rodriguez, A.; Ruane, A.C.; Ruget, F.; Sanna, M.; Semenov, M.A.; Slawinski, C.; Stratonovitch, P.; Supit, I.; Waha, K.; Wang, E.; Wu, L.; Zhao, Z.; Rotter, R.P. |
| Title |
Classifying multi-model wheat yield impact response surfaces showing sensitivity to temperature and precipitation change |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2018 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Syst. |
| Volume |
159 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
209-224 |
| Keywords |
Classification; Climate change; Crop model; Ensemble; Sensitivity analysis; Wheat; Climate-Change; Crop Models; Probabilistic Assessment; Simulating; Impacts; British Catchments; Uncertainty; Europe; Productivity; Calibration; Adaptation |
| Abstract |
Crop growth simulation models can differ greatly in their treatment of key processes and hence in their response to environmental conditions. Here, we used an ensemble of 26 process-based wheat models applied at sites across a European transect to compare their sensitivity to changes in temperature (-2 to +9 degrees C) and precipitation (-50 to +50%). Model results were analysed by plotting them as impact response surfaces (IRSs), classifying the IRS patterns of individual model simulations, describing these classes and analysing factors that may explain the major differences in model responses. The model ensemble was used to simulate yields of winter and spring wheat at four sites in Finland, Germany and Spain. Results were plotted as IRSs that show changes in yields relative to the baseline with respect to temperature and precipitation. IRSs of 30-year means and selected extreme years were classified using two approaches describing their pattern. The expert diagnostic approach (EDA) combines two aspects of IRS patterns: location of the maximum yield (nine classes) and strength of the yield response with respect to climate (four classes), resulting in a total of 36 combined classes defined using criteria pre-specified by experts. The statistical diagnostic approach (SDA) groups IRSs by comparing their pattern and magnitude, without attempting to interpret these features. It applies a hierarchical clustering method, grouping response patterns using a distance metric that combines the spatial correlation and Euclidian distance between IRS pairs. The two approaches were used to investigate whether different patterns of yield response could be related to different properties of the crop models, specifically their genealogy, calibration and process description. Although no single model property across a large model ensemble was found to explain the integrated yield response to temperature and precipitation perturbations, the application of the EDA and SDA approaches revealed their capability to distinguish: (i) stronger yield responses to precipitation for winter wheat than spring wheat; (ii) differing strengths of response to climate changes for years with anomalous weather conditions compared to period-average conditions; (iii) the influence of site conditions on yield patterns; (iv) similarities in IRS patterns among models with related genealogy; (v) similarities in IRS patterns for models with simpler process descriptions of root growth and water uptake compared to those with more complex descriptions; and (vi) a closer correspondence of IRS patterns in models using partitioning schemes to represent yield formation than in those using a harvest index. Such results can inform future crop modelling studies that seek to exploit the diversity of multi-model ensembles, by distinguishing ensemble members that span a wide range of responses as well as those that display implausible behaviour or strong mutual similarities. |
| Address |
2018-01-25 |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
0308-521x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5186 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Cammarano, D.; Rötter, P.; Ewert, F.; Palosuo, T.; Bindi, M.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Olesen, J.E.; Trnka, M.; van Ittersum, M.K.; Janssen, S.; Rivington, M.; Semenov, M.; Wallach, D.; Porter, J.R.; Stewart, D.; Verhagen, J.; Angulo, C.; Gaiser, T.; Nendel, C.; Martre, P.; de Wit, A. |
| Title |
Challenges for Agro-Ecosystem Modelling in Climate Change Risk Assessment for major European Crops and Farming systems |
Type |
Conference Article |
| Year |
2013 |
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
555-564 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
|
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
Impacts World 2013, International Conference on Climate Change Effects, Potsdam, Germany, 2013-05-27 to 2013-05-30 |
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2765 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Ewert, F.; Rötter, R.; Brüser, K. |
| Title |
CropM: Understanding and Modelling Impacts of Climate Change on Crop Production |
Type |
Conference Article |
| Year |
2015 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
6 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
SP6-2 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
Key ambition:To developa shared comprehensive information system on the impacts of climate change on European crop production and food securityfirst shared pan-continental assessments and tools(Full) range of important crops and important crop rotationsImproved management and analysis of dataModel improvement (stresses and factors not yet accounted for)Advanced scaling methodsAdvanced link to farm and sector modelsComprehensive uncertainty assessment and reportingTo train integrative crop modelerData. for better understanding and modelling climate change impactEvaluation of data quality (platinum, gold, silver)Quantify data gaps for modellingEmpirical analysis of crop responses to past climate variability and changeObserved adaptation options and their efficacyEffect of extreme events (past analysis and projections)Climate change scenariosConcept for data management, data journalUncertaintyMethodology & protocols for uncertainty analysisMethodology for standardized model evaluationLocal-scale climate scenarios & uncertainties in climate projectionsBasic methodology for probabilistic assessment of CC impacts using impact response surfacesMethodology for probabilistic evaluation of alternative adaptation options Main aims in MACSUR2:Improve crop model to better capture extremesComplement knowledge from crop models with empirical crop-weather analysisConsider management variables in simulationsFull range of methods for analysing uncertainty in climate impact assessmentsEvaluate potential adaptation optionsContributing to cross-cutting issues and case studies.Further the links with other modelling activitiesLink local to European and global responses No Label |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
Brussels |
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
Climate-change impacts on farming systems in the next decades: Why worry when you have CAP? A FACCE MACSUR workshop for policymakers |
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2083 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Wallach, D.; Thorburn, P.; Asseng, S.; Challinor, A.J.; Ewert, F.; Jones, J.W.; Rötter, R.; Ruane, A. |
| Title |
Overview paper on comprehensive framework for assessment of error and uncertainty in crop model predictions |
Type |
Report |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
8 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
C4.1-D |
| Keywords |
MACSUR_ACK; CropM |
| Abstract |
Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. Several ways of quantifying prediction uncertainty have been explored in the literature, but there have been no studies of how the different approaches are related to one another, and how they are related to some overall measure of prediction uncertainty. Here we show that all the different approaches can be related to two different viewpoints about the model; either the model is treated as a fixed predictor with some average error, or the model can be treated as a random variable with uncertainty in one or more of model structure, model inputs and model parameters. We discuss the differences, and show how mean squared error of prediction can be estimated in both cases. The results can be used to put uncertainty estimates into a more general framework and to relate different uncertainty estimates to one another and to overall prediction uncertainty. This should lead to a better understanding of crop model prediction uncertainty and the underlying causes of that uncertainty. This study was published as (Wallach et al. 2016) |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ office @ |
Serial |
2954 |
| Permanent link to this record |
