Hoveid, Ø. (2015). An economist’s wish list for soil and crop modelling (Vol. 5).
Abstract: A requirement for successful integration of soil, crop and economic models is a relevant interface of the three. Economic farming models deal with choice of crops, crop management during growing season and stock management after harvest. With detailed daily weather information the state of the soil might be simulated so that a suitable sowing date can be estimated. Moreover with rational beliefs with respect to future crop prices, and with a crop model which responds to management, the management during the growing season might be optimized with respect to choice of cultivar, fertilization and irrigation. So far, as reflected by Müller and Robertson (2014), predictions of future crop yields according to crop models take only to small extent such farmer responses into account, and might therefore overestimate the responses of crop harvests to climate.Comparison of soil, crop and economic simulations with observed weather and crop outcomes might lead to estimation/calibration of unobserved parameters in all models. Such exercises need generic soil, crop and economic models which do not leave modelling outcomes to the crop modeller’s or economist’s discretion. No Label
|
Roggero, P. P. (2013). Strategies for engagement on adaptation and mitigation with national and EU policy makers and with the agro-food chain sector (Vol. 2).
Abstract: A process for the strategic mapping of national and EU policy makers to be engaged in an interactive and iterative process of learning was designed, based on literature review and specific experience of some participants. In this first intermediate version, we propose a stakeholder mapping process design which will ideally lead to setting the boundaries of context-sensitive systems of interest for pilot actions or interdisciplinary case studies. The mapping exercise will be tested by participants No Label
|
König, H., Helming, K., Ayalon, O., Benami, E., & Palatnik, R. R. (2014). Curriculum for training course on policy impact assessment (Vol. 3).
Abstract: A one-week MACSUR training course on policy impact assessment was held in March 2014 at Haifa University in Israel. The course was organised by ZALF (Hannes König, Katharina Helming) and Haifa University (Ofira Ayalon, Edan Benami, Ruslana Palatnik), targeting at the participation of Post-Docs and PhD students associated to the MACSUR consortium. The Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA) was used as the main method for the course to support structuring the policy impact assessment. The Israelian MACSUR case study of the Ramat Menashe Biosphere was used the test case of assessing alternative policy options and sustainability trade-offs. No Label
|
Wallach, D., & Rivington, M. (2015). Identification and quantification of differences between models (Vol. 6).
Abstract: A major goal of crop model inter-comparison is model improvement, and an important intermediate step toward that goal is understanding in some detail how models differ, and the consequences of those differences. This report is intended as a first attempt at describing possible techniques for relating differences between model outputs to specific aspects of the models. No Label
|
Palosuo, T. (2013). Data format for model in- and output (Vol. 2).
Abstract: A common format for model input variables and model output variables has been defined to be distributed to modellers participating in the model inter-comparison and improvement. The aim of common formats is to support the communication between the modellers, those providing empirical data of the experiments and those analysing the simulation results. The input format facilitates the model application in a way that each cropping-system to be modelled will be defined in the same way. Data will be delivered in EXCEL sheets with sub-tables for each block of inputs. Tables are mostly organized in a way that allows export and sequential read-in by the models. The common output format enables effective processing of results estimating model performance indicators. No Label
|
