|
|
Rötter, R. (2015). Challenges for CropM in integrated (regional) assessment of climate change risks to food production (Vol. 4).
|
|
|
|
Bojar, W., Knopik, L., & Zarski, J. (2015). Application of Markov chains approach for expecting extreme precipitation changes having impact on food supply (Vol. 4).
Abstract: This work was co-financed by NCBiR, Contract no. FACCE JPI/04/2012 – P100 PARTNER No Label
|
|
|
|
Ruiz-Ramos, M., Ferrise, R., & Rötter, R. (2015). Concepts and methods developed for probabilistic evaluation of a number of alternative adaptation options (Vol. 6).
Abstract: The purpose of this document is to define the protocol for a second study (IRS2) based on impact response surfaces (IRSs) in the frame of CropM/WP4. General considerations of IRS construction are described in the protocol developed for Phase I of the IRS analysis (IRS1)Access to the full document is restricted to MACSUR members until 2015-11-01. No Label
|
|
|
|
Pirttioja, N., Carter, T. R., & 47 al., & Rötter, R. P. (2015). A crop model ensemble analysis of temperature and precipitation effects on wheat yield across a European transect using impact response surfaces (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Impact response surfaces (IRSs) of spring and winter wheat yields were constructed from a 26-member ensemble of process-based crop simulation models for sites in Finland, Germany and Spain across a latitudinal transect in Europe. The sensitivity of modelled yield to systematic increments of changes in temperature (-2 to +9°C) and precipitation (-50 to +50%) was tested by modifying values of 1981–2010 baseline weather.In spite of large differences in simulated yield responses to both baseline and changed climate between models, sites, crops and years, several common messages emerged. Ensemble average yields decline with higher temperatures (3–7% per 1°C) and decreased precipitation (3–9% per 10% decrease), but benefit from increased precipitation (0-8% per 10% increase). Yields are more sensitive to temperature than precipitation changes at the Finnish site while sensitivities are mixed at the German and Spanish sites. Precipitation effects diminish under higher temperature changes. Inter-model variability is highest for baseline climate at the Spanish site, but relatively insensitive to changed climate. Modelled responses diverge most at the Finnish and German sites for winter wheat under temperature change. The IRS pattern of yield reliability tracks average yield levels. Inter-annual yield variability is more sensitive to precipitation than temperature, except at the Spanish site for spring wheat.Optimal temperatures for present-day cultivars are close to the baseline under Finnish conditions but below the baseline at the German and Spanish sites. This suggests that adoption of later maturing cultivars with higher temperature requirements might already be advantageous, and increasingly so under future warming. No Label
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
