| Home | [1–10] << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >> |
|
Toscano, P., Ranieri, R., Matese, A., Vaccari, F. P., Gioli, B., Zaldei, A., et al. (2012). Durum wheat modeling: The Delphi system, 11 years of observations in Italy. European Journal of Agronomy, 43, 108–118.
Abstract: ► Delphi system, based on AFRCWHEAT2 model, for durum wheat forecast. ► AFRCWHEAT2 model was calibrated and validated for three years. ► A scenario approach was applied to simulation of durum wheat yield. ► Operational mode for eleven years in rainfed and water limiting conditions. ► Accurate forecast as an useful planning tool. Crop models are frequently used in ecology, agronomy and environmental sciences for simulating crop and environmental variables at a discrete time step. The aim of this work was to test the predictive capacity of the Delphi system, calibrated and determined for each pedoclimatic factor affecting durum wheat during phenological development. at regional scale. We present an innovative system capable of predicting spatial yield variation and temporal yield fluctuation in long-term analysis, that are the main purposes of regional crop simulation study. The Delphi system was applied to simulate growth and yield of durum wheat in the major Italian supply basins (Basilicata, Capitanata, Marche, Tuscany). The model was validated and evaluated for three years (1995-1997) at 11 experimental fields and then used in operational mode for eleven years (1999-2009), showing an excellent/good accuracy in predicting grain yield even before maturity for a wide range of growing conditions in the Mediterranean climate, governed by different annual weather patterns. The results were evaluated on the basis of regression and normalized root mean squared error with known crop yield statistics at regional level. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
Dietrich, J. P., Schmitz, C., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., & Müller, C. (2014). Forecasting technological change in agriculture—An endogenous implementation in a global land use model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 236–249.
Abstract: ► Endogenous technological change in an economic land use model ► Estimation of yield elasticity with respect to investments in technological change ► Projections of future agricultural productivity rates ► Validation with observed data and historic trends ► Trade-off between required technological change and forest protection objectives Technological change in agriculture plays a decisive role for meeting future demands for agricultural goods. However, up to now, agricultural sector models and models on land use change have used technological change as an exogenous input due to various information and data deficiencies. This paper provides a first attempt towards an endogenous implementation based on a measure of agricultural land use intensity. We relate this measure to empirical data on investments in technological change. Our estimated yield elasticity with respect to research investments is 0.29 and production costs per area increase linearly with an increasing yield level. Implemented in the global land use model MAgPIE (“Model of Agricultural Production and its Impact on the Environment”) this approach provides estimates of future yield growth. Highest future yield increases are required in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. Our validation with FAO data for the period 1995–2005 indicates that the model behavior is in line with observations. By comparing two scenarios on forest conservation we show that protecting sensitive forest areas in the future is possible but requires substantial investments into technological change.
|
|
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: ► We compared nine crop simulation models for spring barley at seven sites in Europe. ► Applying crop models with restricted calibration leads to high uncertainties. ► Multi-crop model mean yield estimates were in good agreement with observations. ► The degree of uncertainty for simulated grain yield of barley was similar to winter wheat. ► We need more suitable data enabling us to verify different processes in the models. 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.
|