| 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.
|
|
Kahiluoto, H., Kaseva, J., Hakala, K., Himanen, S. J., Jauhiainen, L., Rötter, R. P., et al. (2014). Cultivating resilience by empirically revealing response diversity. Glob. Environ. Change, 25, 186–193.
Abstract: Intensified climate and market turbulence requires resilience to a multitude of changes. Diversity reduces the sensitivity to disturbance and fosters the capacity to adapt to various future scenarios. What really matters is diversity of responses. Despite appeals to manage resilience, conceptual developments have not yet yielded a break-through in empirical applications. Here, we present an approach to empirically reveal the ‘response diversity’: the factors of change that are critical to a system are identified, and the response diversity is determined based on the documented component responses to these factors. We illustrate this approach and its added value using an example of securing food supply in the face of climate variability and change. This example demonstrates that quantifying response diversity allows for a new perspective: despite continued increase in cultivar diversity of barley, the diversity in responses to weather declined during the last decade in the regions where most of the barley is grown in Finland. This was due to greater homogeneity in responses among new cultivars than among older ones. Such a decline in the response diversity indicates increased vulnerability and reduced resilience. The assessment serves adaptive management in the face of both ecological and socioeconomic drivers. Supplier diversity in the food retail industry in order to secure affordable food in spite of global price volatility could represent another application. The approach is, indeed, applicable to any system for which it is possible to adopt empirical information regarding the response by its components to the critical factors of variability and change. Targeting diversification in response to critical change brings efficiency into diversity. We propose the generic procedure that is demonstrated in this study as a means to efficiently enhance resilience at multiple levels of agrifood systems and beyond. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
Wang, E., Martre, P., Zhao, Z., Ewert, F., Maiorano, A., Rötter, R. P., et al. (2017). The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions. Nature Plants, 3, 17102.
Abstract: Increasing the accuracy of crop productivity estimates is a key element in planning adaptation strategies to ensure global food security under climate change. Process-based crop models are effective means to project climate impact on crop yield, but have large uncertainty in yield simulations. Here, we show that variations in the mathematical functions currently used to simulate temperature responses of physiological processes in 29 wheat models account for >50% of uncertainty in simulated grain yields for mean growing season temperatures from 14 °C to 33 °C. We derived a set of new temperature response functions that when substituted in four wheat models reduced the error in grain yield simulations across seven global sites with different temperature regimes by 19% to 50% (42% average). We anticipate the improved temperature responses to be a key step to improve modelling of crops under rising temperature and climate change, leading to higher skill of crop yield projections. Erratum: doi: 10.1038/nplants.2017.125
|
|
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.
|
|
Pirttioja, N., Carter, T. R., & 47 al., & Rötter, R. P. (2015). A crop model ensemble analysis of temperature and precipitation effects on wheat yield across a European transect using impact response surfaces (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Impact response surfaces (IRSs) of spring and winter wheat yields were constructed from a 26-member ensemble of process-based crop simulation models for sites in Finland, Germany and Spain across a latitudinal transect in Europe. The sensitivity of modelled yield to systematic increments of changes in temperature (-2 to +9°C) and precipitation (-50 to +50%) was tested by modifying values of 1981–2010 baseline weather.In spite of large differences in simulated yield responses to both baseline and changed climate between models, sites, crops and years, several common messages emerged. Ensemble average yields decline with higher temperatures (3–7% per 1°C) and decreased precipitation (3–9% per 10% decrease), but benefit from increased precipitation (0-8% per 10% increase). Yields are more sensitive to temperature than precipitation changes at the Finnish site while sensitivities are mixed at the German and Spanish sites. Precipitation effects diminish under higher temperature changes. Inter-model variability is highest for baseline climate at the Spanish site, but relatively insensitive to changed climate. Modelled responses diverge most at the Finnish and German sites for winter wheat under temperature change. The IRS pattern of yield reliability tracks average yield levels. Inter-annual yield variability is more sensitive to precipitation than temperature, except at the Spanish site for spring wheat.Optimal temperatures for present-day cultivars are close to the baseline under Finnish conditions but below the baseline at the German and Spanish sites. This suggests that adoption of later maturing cultivars with higher temperature requirements might already be advantageous, and increasingly so under future warming. No Label
|