|
|
Ferrise, R., Toscano, P., Pasqui, M., Moriondo, M., Primicerio, J., Semenov, M. A., et al. (2015). Monthly-to-seasonal predictions of durum wheat yield over the Mediterranean Basin. Clim. Res., 65, 7–21.
Abstract: Uncertainty in weather conditions for the forthcoming growing season influences farmers’ decisions, based on their experience of the past climate, regarding the reduction of agricultural risk. Early within-season predictions of grain yield can represent a great opportunity for farmers to improve their management decisions and potentially increase yield and reduce potential risk. This study assessed 3 methods of within-season predictions of durum wheat yield at 10 sites across the Mediterranean Basin. To assess the value of within-season predictions, the model SiriusQuality2 was used to calculate wheat yields over a 9 yr period. Initially, the model was run with observed daily weather to obtain the reference yields. Then, yield predictions were calculated at a monthly time step, starting from 6 mo before harvest, by feeding the model with observed weather from the beginning of the growing season until a specific date and then with synthetic weather constructed using the 3 methods, historical, analogue or empirical, until the end of the growing season. The results showed that it is possible to predict durum wheat yield over the Mediterranean Basin with an accuracy of normalized root means squared error of <20%, from 5 to 6 mo earlier for the historical and empirical methods and 3 mo earlier for the analogue method. Overall, the historical method performed better than the others. Nonetheless, the analogue and empirical methods provided better estimations for low-yielding and high-yielding years, thus indicating great potential to provide more accurate predictions for years that deviate from average conditions.
|
|
|
|
Webber, H., Martre, P., Asseng, S., Kimball, B., White, J., Ottman, M., et al. (2017). Canopy temperature for simulation of heat stress in irrigated wheat in a semi-arid environment: A multi-model comparison. Field Crops Research, 202, 21–35.
Abstract: Even brief periods of high temperatures occurring around flowering and during grain filling can severely reduce grain yield in cereals. Recently, ecophysiological and crop models have begun to represent such phenomena. Most models use air temperature (Tair) in their heat stress responses despite evidence that crop canopy temperature (Tc) better explains grain yield losses. Tc can deviate significantly from Tair based on climatic factors and the crop water status. The broad objective of this study was to evaluate whether simulation of Tc improves the ability of crop models to simulate heat stress impacts on wheat under irrigated conditions. Nine process-based models, each using one of three broad approaches (empirical, EMP; energy balance assuming neutral atmospheric stability, EBN; and energy balance correcting for the atmospheric stability conditions, EBSC) to simulate Tc, simulated grain yield under a range of temperature conditions. The models varied widely in their ability to reproduce the measured Tc with the commonly used EBN models performing much worse than either EMP or EBSC. Use of Tc to account for heat stress effects did improve simulations compared to using only Tair to a relatively minor extent, but the models that additionally use Tc on various other processes as well did not have better yield simulations. Models that simulated yield well under heat stress had varying skill in simulating Tc. For example, the EBN models had very poor simulations of Tc but performed very well in simulating grain yield. These results highlight the need to more systematically understand and model heat stress events in wheat.
|
|
|
|
Barber, H. M., Lukac, M., Simmonds, J., Semenov, M. A., & Gooding, M. J. (2017). Temporally and Genetically Discrete Periods of Wheat Sensitivity to High Temperature. Front. Plant Sci, 8, 51.
Abstract: Successive single day transfers of pot-grown wheat to high temperature (35/30°C day/night) replicated controlled environments, from the second node detectable to the milky-ripe growth stages, provides the strongest available evidence that the fertility of wheat can be highly vulnerable to heat stress during two discrete peak periods of susceptibility: early booting [decimal growth stage (GS) 41-45] and early anthesis (GS 61-65). A double Gaussian fitted simultaneously to grain number and weight data from two contrasting elite lines (Renesansa, listed in Serbia, Ppd-D1a, Rht8; Savannah, listed in UK, Ppd-D1b, Rht-D1b) identified peak periods of main stem susceptibility centered on 3 (s.e. = 0.82) and 18 (s.e. = 0.55) days (mean daily temperature = 14.3°C) pre-GS 65 for both cultivars. Severity of effect depended on genotype, growth stage and their interaction: grain set relative to that achieved at 20/15°C dropped below 80% for Savannah at booting and Renesansa at anthesis. Savannah was relatively tolerant to heat stress at anthesis. A further experiment including 62 lines of the mapping, doubled-haploid progeny of Renesansa × Savannah found tolerance at anthesis to be associated with Ppd-D1b, Rht-D1b, and a QTL from Renesansa on chromosome 2A. None of the relevant markers were associated with tolerance during booting. Rht8 was never associated with heat stress tolerance, a lack of effect confirmed in a further experiment where Rht8 was included in a comparison of near isogenic lines in a cv. Paragon background. Some compensatory increases in mean grain weight were observed, but only when stress was applied during booting and only where Ppd-D1a was absent.
|
|
|
|
Webber, H., White, J. W., Kimball, B. A., Ewert, F., Asseng, S., Rezaei, E. E., et al. (2018). Physical robustness of canopy temperature models for crop heat stress simulation across environments and production conditions. Field Crops Research, 216, 75–88.
Abstract: Despite widespread application in studying climate change impacts, most crop models ignore complex interactions among air temperature, crop and soil water status, CO2 concentration and atmospheric conditions that influence crop canopy temperature. The current study extended previous studies by evaluating Tc simulations from nine crop models at six locations across environmental and production conditions. Each crop model implemented one of an empirical (EMP), an energy balance assuming neutral stability (EBN) or an energy balance correcting for atmospheric stability conditions (EBSC) approach to simulate Tc. Model performance in predicting Tc was evaluated for two experiments in continental North America with various water, nitrogen and CO2 treatments. An empirical model fit to one dataset had the best performance, followed by the EBSC models. Stability conditions explained much of the differences between modeling approaches. More accurate simulation of heat stress will likely require use of energy balance approaches that consider atmospheric stability conditions.
|
|
|
|
Ruane, A. C., Hudson, N. I., Asseng, S., Camarrano, D., Ewert, F., Martre, P., et al. (2016). Multi-wheat-model ensemble responses to interannual climate variability. Env. Model. Softw., 81, 86–101.
Abstract: We compare 27 wheat models’ yield responses to interannual climate variability, analyzed at locations in Argentina, Australia, India, and The Netherlands as part of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Wheat Pilot. Each model simulated 1981-2010 grain yield, and we evaluate results against the interannual variability of growing season temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation. The amount of information used for calibration has only a minor effect on most models’ climate response, and even small multi-model ensembles prove beneficial. Wheat model clusters reveal common characteristics of yield response to climate; however models rarely share the same cluster at all four sites indicating substantial independence. Only a weak relationship (R-2 <= 0.24) was found between the models’ sensitivities to interannual temperature variability and their response to long-term warming, suggesting that additional processes differentiate climate change impacts from observed climate variability analogs and motivating continuing analysis and model development efforts. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
