|
|
Kipling, R., & Özkan, Ş. (2016). Stakeholder engagement and the perceptions of researchers: How agricultural modellers view challenges to communication (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Conference presentation PDF
|
|
|
|
Calanca, P. (2016). Modelling the impacts of seasonal drought on herbage growth under climate change (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Conference presentation PDF
|
|
|
|
Sinabell, F. (2016). Yield potentials and yield gaps in soybean production in Austria – a biophysical and economic assessment (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: context of analysis:• stakeholders. policy relevance: CC and protein crops• research problem:• how large is the yield gap and what can be done• data• approaches• findings• discussion and outlook yield gap analysis is a daunting task• what can be learned• economics matters: prices of crop and other crops• land expansion: more land becoming more marginal• management matters a lot but – not directly observable in data• significant knowledge gaps still there• way forward:• look at other crops• explore options to improve management
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Estimating model prediction error: Should you treat predictions as fixed or random. Env. Model. Softw., 84, 529–539.
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. We compare two criteria of prediction error; MSEPfixed, which evaluates mean squared error of prediction for a model with fixed structure, parameters and inputs, and MSEPuncertain(X), which evaluates mean squared error averaged over the distributions of model structure, inputs and parameters. Comparison of model outputs with data can be used to estimate the former. The latter has a squared bias term, which can be estimated using hindcasts, and a model variance term, which can be estimated from a simulation experiment. The separate contributions to MSEPuncertain(X) can be estimated using a random effects ANOVA. It is argued that MSEPuncertain(X) is the more informative uncertainty criterion, because it is specific to each prediction situation.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Overview paper on comprehensive framework for assessment of error and uncertainty in crop model predictions (Vol. 8).
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)
|
|
