|
|
Hidy, D., Barcza, Z., Haszpra, L., Churkina, G., Pintér, K., & Nagy, Z. (2012). Development of the Biome-BGC model for simulation of managed herbaceous ecosystems. Ecol. Model., 226, 99–119.
Abstract: Apart from measurements, numerical models are the most convenient instruments to analyze the carbon and water balance of terrestrial ecosystems and their interactions with changing environmental conditions. The process-based Biome-BGC model is widely used to simulate the storage and flux of water, carbon, and nitrogen within the vegetation, litter, and soil of unmanaged terrestrial ecosystems. Considering herbaceous vegetation related simulations with Biome-BGC, soil moisture and growing season control on ecosystem functioning is inaccurate due to the simple soil hydrology and plant phenology representation within the model. Consequently, Biome-BGC has limited applicability in herbaceous ecosystems because (1) they are usually managed; (2) they are sensitive to soil processes, most of all hydrology; and (3) their carbon balance is closely connected with the growing season length. Our aim was to improve the applicability of Biome-BGC for managed herbaceous ecosystems by implementing several new modules, including management. A new index (heatsum growing season index) was defined to accurately estimate the first and the final days of the growing season. Instead of a simple bucket soil sub-model, a multilayer soil sub-model was implemented, which can handle the processes of runoff, diffusion and percolation. A new module was implemented to simulate the ecophysiological effect of drought stress on plant mortality. Mowing and grazing modules were integrated in order to quantify the functioning of managed ecosystems. After modifications, the Biome-BGC model was calibrated and validated using eddy covariance-based measurement data collected in Hungarian managed grassland ecosystems. Model calibration was performed based on the Bayes theorem. As a result of these developments and calibration, the performance of the model was substantially improved. Comparison with measurement-based estimate showed that the start and the end of the growing season are now predicted with an average accuracy of 5 and 4 days instead of 46 and 85 days as in the original model. Regarding the different sites and modeled fluxes (gross primary production, total ecosystem respiration, evapotranspiration), relative errors were between 18-60% using the original model and 10-18% using the developed model; squares of the correlation coefficients were between 0.02-0.49 using the original model and 0.50-0.81 using the developed model. (c) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Below, T. B., Mutabazi, K. D., Kirschke, D., Franke, C., Sieber, S., Siebert, R., et al. (2012). Can farmers’ adaptation to climate change be explained by socio-economic household-level variables. Glob. Environ. Change, 22(1), 223–235.
Abstract: A better understanding of processes that shape farmers’ adaptation to climate change is critical to identify vulnerable entities and to develop well-targeted adaptation policies. However, it is currently poorly understood what determines farmers’ adaptation and how to measure it. In this study, we develop an activity-based adaptation index (AAI) and explore the relationship between socioeconomic variables and farmers’ adaptation behavior by means of an explanatory factor analysis and a multiple linear regression model using latent variables. The model was tested in six villages situated in two administrative wards in the Morogoro region of Tanzania. The Mlali ward represents a system of relatively high agricultural potential, whereas the Gairo ward represents a system of low agricultural potential. A household survey, a rapid rural appraisal and, a stakeholder workshop were used for data collection. The data were analyzed using factor analysis, multiple linear regression, descriptive statistical methods and qualitative content analysis. The empirical results are discussed in the context of theoretical concepts of adaptation and the sustainable livelihood approach. We found that public investment in rural infrastructure, in the availability and technically efficient use of inputs, in a good education system that provides equal chances for women, and in the strengthening of social capital, agricultural extension and, microcredit services are the best means of improving the adaptation of the farmers from the six villages in Gairo and Mlali. We conclude that the newly developed AAI is a simple but promising way to capture the complexity of adaptation processes that addresses a number of shortcomings of previous index studies.
|
|
|
|
Montesino-San Martín, M., Olesen, J. E., & Porter, J. R. (2015). Can crop-climate models be accurate and precise? A case study for wheat production in Denmark. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 202, 51–60.
Abstract: Crop models, used to make projections of climate change impacts, differ greatly in structural detail. Complexity of model structure has generic effects on uncertainty and error propagation in climate change impact assessments. We applied Bayesian calibration to three distinctly different empirical and mechanistic wheat models to assess how differences in the extent of process understanding in models affects uncertainties in projected impact. Predictive power of the models was tested via both accuracy (bias) and precision (or tightness of grouping) of yield projections for extrapolated weather conditions. Yields predicted by the mechanistic model were generally more accurate than the empirical models for extrapolated conditions. This trend does not hold for all extrapolations; mechanistic and empirical models responded differently due to their sensitivities to distinct weather features. However, higher accuracy comes at the cost of precision of the mechanistic model to embrace all observations within given boundaries. The approaches showed complementarity in sensitivity to weather variables and in accuracy for different extrapolation domains. Their differences in model precision and accuracy make them suitable for generic model ensembles for near-term agricultural impact assessments of climate change.
|
|
|
|
Rötter, R. P., Appiah, M., Fichtler, E., Kersebaum, K. C., Trnka, M., & Hoffmann, M. P. (2018). Linking modelling and experimentation to better capture crop impacts of agroclimatic extremes-A review. Field Crops Research, 221, 142–156.
Abstract: Climate change implies higher frequency and magnitude of agroclimatic extremes threatening plant production and the provision of other ecosystem services. This review is motivated by a mismatch between advances made regarding deeper understanding of abiotic stress physiology and its incorporation into ecophysiological models in order to more accurately quantifying the impacts of extreme events at crop system or higher aggregation levels. Adverse agroclimatic extremes considered most detrimental to crop production include drought, heat, heavy rains/hail and storm, flooding and frost, and, in particular, combinations of them. Our core question is: How have and could empirical data be exploited to improve the capability of widely used crop simulation models in assessing crop impacts of key agroclimatic extremes for the globally most important grain crops? To date there is no comprehensive review synthesizing available knowledge for a broad range of extremes, grain crops and crop models as a basis for identifying research gaps and prospects. To address these issues, we selected eight major grain crops and performed three systematic reviews using SCOPUS for period 1995-2016. Furthermore, we amended/complemented the reviews manually and performed an in-depth analysis using a sub-sample of papers. Results show that by far the majority of empirical studies (1631 out of 1772) concentrate on the three agroclimatic extremes drought, heat and heavy rain and on the three major staples wheat, maize and rice (1259 out of 1772); the concentration on just a few has increased over time. With respect to modelling studies two model families, i.e. CERES-DSSAT and APSIM, are dearly dominating for wheat and maize; for rice, ORYZA2000 and CERES-Rice predominate and are equally strong. For crops other than maize and wheat the number of studies is small. Empirical and modelling papers don’t differ much in the proportions the various extreme events are dealt with drought and heat stress together account for approx. 80% of the studies. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of papers, especially after 2010. As a way forward, we suggest to have very targeted and well-designed experiments on the specific crop impacts of a given extreme as well as of combinations of them. This in particular refers to extremes addressed with insufficient specificity (e.g. drought) or being under-researched in relation to their economic importance (heavy rains/storm and flooding). Furthermore, we strongly recommend extending research to crops other than wheat, maize and rice.
|
|
|
|
Challinor, A. J., Smith, M. S., & Thornton, P. (2013). Use of agro-climate ensembles for quantifying uncertainty and informing adaptation. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 170, 2–7.
Abstract: ► Introduces the special issue on Agricultural prediction using climate model ensembles. ► Discuss remaining scientific challenges. ► Develops distinction between projection- and utility-based ensemble modelling. ► Recommendations made RE modelling and the analysis and reporting of uncertainty. Significant progress has been made in the use of ensemble agricultural and climate modelling, and observed data, to project future productivity and to develop adaptation options. An increasing number of agricultural models are designed specifically for use with climate ensembles, and improved methods to quantify uncertainty in both climate and agriculture have been developed. Whilst crop–climate relationships are still the most common agricultural study of this sort, on-farm management, hydrology, pests, diseases and livestock are now also examined. This paper introduces all of these areas of progress, with more detail being found in the subsequent papers in the special issue. Remaining scientific challenges are discussed, and a distinction is developed between projection- and utility-based approaches to agro-climate ensemble modelling. Recommendations are made regarding the manner in which uncertainty is analysed and reported, and the way in which models and data are used to make inferences regarding the future. A key underlying principle is the use of models as tools from which information is extracted, rather than as competing attempts to represent reality.
|
|
