|
|
Semenov, M. A., Pilkington-Bennett, S., & Calanca, P. (2013). Validation of ELPIS 1980-2010 baseline scenarios using the observed European Climate Assessment data set. Clim. Res., 57(1), 1–9.
Abstract: Local-scale daily climate scenarios are required for assessment of climate change impacts. ELPIS is a repository of local-scale climate scenarios for Europe, which are based on the LARS-WG weather generator and future projections from 2 multi-model ensembles, CMIP3 and EU-ENSEMBLES. In ELPIS, the site parameters for the 1980-2010 baseline scenarios were estimated by LARS-WG using daily weather from the European Crop Growth Monitoring System (CGMS) used in many European agricultural assessment studies. The objective of this paper was to compare ELPIS baseline scenarios with observed daily weather obtained independently from the European Climate Assessment (ECA) data set. Several statistical tests were used to compare distributions of climatic variables derived from ECA-observed daily weather and ELPIS-generated baseline scenarios. About 30% of selected sites have a difference in altitude of > 50 m compared with the CGMS grid-cell altitude that was selected to represent agricultural land within a grid-cell. Differences in altitude can explain significant Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS-test) results for distribution of daily temperature and in t-tests for temperature monthly means, because of the well-known negative correlation between temperature and elevation. For daily precipitation, the KS-test showed little difference between generated and observed data; however, the more sensitive t-test showed significant results for the sites where altitude differences were large. Approximately 11% of sites showed small positive or negative bias in monthly solar radiation, although 86% sites showed > 3 significant t-test results for monthly means. These results can be explained by differences in conversion of sunshine hours to solar radiation used in CGMS and LARS-WG. We conclude that, considering the limitations above, ELPIS baseline scenarios are suitable for agricultural impact assessments in Europe.
|
|
|
|
Virkajärvi, P., Jing, Q., Bélanger, G., Baron, V., Bonesmo, H., & Young, D. (2013). Modeling grassland with CATIMO – focus on the second cut. (Vol. 9(1), pp. 9–13).
|
|
|
|
Waha, K., & Müller, C. (2013). The essential temperature routines in LPJmL for wheat simulations. In P. D. Alderman, E. Quilligan, S. Asseng, F. Ewert, & M. P. Reynolds (Eds.), (pp. 81–84). Proceedings of the Workshop ‘Modeling Wheat Response to High Temperature’ CIMMYT, El Batan, Texcoco, Mexico, June 19-21, 2013.
|
|
|
|
Schaap, B. F., Reidsma, P., Verhagen, J., Wolf, J., & van Ittersum, M. K. (2013). Participatory design of farm level adaptation to climate risks in an arable region in The Netherlands. European Journal of Agronomy, 48, 30–42.
Abstract: In the arable farming region Flevoland in The Netherlands climate change, including extreme events and pests and diseases, will likely pose risks to a variety of crops including high value crops such as seed potato, ware potato and seed onion. A well designed adaptation strategy at the farm level can reduce risks for farmers in Flevoland. Currently, most of the impact assessments rely heavily on (modelling) techniques that cannot take into account extreme events and pests and diseases and cannot address all crops, and are thus not suited as input for a comprehensive adaptation strategy at the farm level. To identify major climate risks and impacts and develop an adaptation measure portfolio for the most relevant risks we complemented crop growth modelling with a semi-quantitative and participatory approach, the Agro Climatic Calendar (ACC), A cost-benefit analysis and stakeholder workshops were used to identify robust adaptation measures and design an adaptation strategy for contrasting scenarios in 2050. For Flevoland, potential yields of main crops were projected to increase, but five main climate risks were identified, and these are likely to offset the positive impacts. Optimized adaptation strategies differ per scenario (frequency of occurrence of climate risks) and per farm (difference in economic loss). When impacts are high (in the +2 degrees C and A1 SRES scenario) drip irrigation was identified as the best adaptation measure against the main climate risk heat wave that causes second-growth in seed and ware potato. When impacts are smaller (the +1 degrees C and B2 SRES scenario), other options including no adaptation are more cost-effective. Our study shows that with relatively simple techniques such as the ACC combined with a stakeholder process, adaptation strategies can be designed for whole farming systems. Important benefits of this approach compared to modelling techniques are that all crops can be included, all climate factors can be addressed, and a large range of adaptation measures can be explored. This enhances that the identified adaptation strategies are recognizable and relevant for stakeholders. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Porter, J. R., & Christensen, S. (2013). Deconstructing crop processes and models via identities. Plant Cell and Environment, 36(11), 1919–1925.
Abstract: This paper is part review and part opinion piece; it has three parts of increasing novelty and speculation in approach. The first presents an overview of how some of the major crop simulation models approach the issue of simulating the responses of crops to changing climatic and weather variables, mainly atmospheric CO2 concentration and increased and/or varying temperatures. It illustrates an important principle in models of a single cause having alternative effects and vice versa. The second part suggests some features, mostly missing in current crop models, that need to be included in the future, focussing on extreme events such as high temperature or extreme drought. The final opinion part is speculative but novel. It describes an approach to deconstruct resource use efficiencies into their constituent identities or elements based on the Kaya-Porter identity, each of which can be examined for responses to climate and climatic change. We give no promise that the final part is correct’, but we hope it can be a stimulation to thought, hypothesis and experiment, and perhaps a new modelling approach.
|
|
