|
|
Kuhnert, M., Yeluripati, J., Smith, P., Hoffmann, H., van Oijen, M., Constantin, J., et al. (2016). Impact analysis of climate data aggregation at different spatial scales on simulated net primary productivity for croplands. European Journal of Agronomy, 88, 41–52.
Abstract: For spatial crop and agro-systems modelling, there is often a discrepancy between the scale of measured driving data and the target resolution. Spatial data aggregation is often necessary, which can introduce additional uncertainty into the simulation results. Previous studies have shown that climate data aggregation has little effect on simulation of phenological stages, but effects on net primary production (NPP) might still be expected through changing the length of the growing season and the period of grain filling. This study investigates the impact of spatial climate data aggregation on NPP simulation results, applying eleven different models for the same study region (∼34,000 km2), situated in Western Germany. To isolate effects of climate, soil data and management were assumed to be constant over the entire study area and over the entire study period of 29 years. Two crops, winter wheat and silage maize, were tested as monocultures. Compared to the impact of climate data aggregation on yield, the effect on NPP is in a similar range, but is slightly lower, with only small impacts on averages over the entire simulation period and study region. Maximum differences between the five scales in the range of 1–100 km grid cells show changes of 0.4–7.8% and 0.0–4.8% for wheat and maize, respectively, whereas the simulated potential NPP averages of the models show a wide range (1.9–4.2 g C m−2 d−1 and 2.7–6.1 g C m−2 d−1for wheat and maize, respectively). The impact of the spatial aggregation was also tested for shorter time periods, to see if impacts over shorter periods attenuate over longer periods. The results show larger impacts for single years (up to 9.4% for wheat and up to 13.6% for maize). An analysis of extreme weather conditions shows an aggregation effect in vulnerability up to 12.8% and 15.5% between the different resolutions for wheat and maize, respectively. Simulations of NPP averages over larger areas (e.g. regional scale) and longer time periods (several years) are relatively insensitive to climate data.
|
|
|
|
Kipling, R. (2016). LiveM2016: International livestock modelling conference – Modelling grassland-livestock systems under climate change (Vol. 8).
|
|
|
|
Foskolis, A., & Moorby, J. (2016). Lifetime nitrogen efficiency of dairy cattle: Model description and sensitivity analysis. In FACCE MACSUR Reports (Vol. 8, pp. SP8–9).
Abstract: Conference poster PDF
|
|
|
|
Jägermeyr, J., Gerten, D., Schaphoff, S., Heinke, J., Lucht, W., & Rockström, J. (2016). Integrated crop water management might sustainably halve the global food gap. Environ. Res. Lett., 11(2), 025002.
Abstract: As planetary boundaries are rapidly being approached, humanity has little room for additional expansion and conventional intensification of agriculture, while a growing world population further spreads the food gap. Ample evidence exists that improved on-farm water management can close water-related yield gaps to a considerable degree, but its global significance remains unclear. In this modeling study we investigate systematically to what extent integrated crop water management might contribute to closing the global food gap, constrained by the assumption that pressure on water resources and land does not increase. Using a process-based bio-/agrosphere model, we simulate the yield-increasing potential of elevated irrigation water productivity (including irrigation expansion with thus saved water) and optimized use of in situ precipitation water (alleviated soil evaporation, enhanced infiltration, water harvesting for supplemental irrigation) under current and projected future climate (from 20 climate models, with and without beneficial CO2 effects). Results show that irrigation efficiency improvements can save substantial amounts of water in many river basins (globally 48% of non-productive water consumption in an ‘ambitious’ scenario), and if rerouted to irrigate neighboring rainfed systems, can boost kcal production significantly (26% global increase). Low-tech solutions for small-scale farmers on water-limited croplands show the potential to increase rainfed yields to a similar extent. In combination, the ambitious yet achievable integrated water management strategies explored in this study could increase global production by 41% and close the water-related yield gap by 62%. Unabated climate change will have adverse effects on crop yields in many regions, but improvements in water management as analyzed here can buffer such effects to a significant degree.
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
