| Home | [1–10] << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >> [21–23] |
|
Fronzek, S., Pirttioja, N., Carter, T. R., Bindi, M., Hoffmann, H., Palosuo, T., et al. (2017). Classifying multi-model wheat yield impact response surfaces showing sensitivity to temperature and precipitation change (Vol. 10).
Abstract: Crop growth simulation models can differ greatly in their treatment of key processes and hence in their response to environmental conditions. Here, we used an ensemble of 26 process-based wheat models applied at sites across a European transect to compare their sensitivity to changes in temperature (−2 to +9°C) and precipitation (−50 to +50%). Model results were analysed by plotting them as impact response surfaces (IRSs), classifying the IRS patterns of individual model simulations, describing these classes and analysing factors that may explain the major differences in model responses. The model ensemble was used to simulate yields of winter and spring wheat at sites in Finland, Germany and Spain. Results were plotted as IRSs that show changes in yields relative to the baseline with respect to temperature and precipitation. IRSs of 30-year means and selected extreme years were classified using two approaches describing their pattern. The expert diagnostic approach (EDA) combines two aspects of IRS patterns: location of the maximum yield (nine classes, Figure 1) and strength of the yield response with respect to climate (four classes), resulting in a total of 36 combined classes defined using criteria pre-specified by experts. The statistical diagnostic approach (SDA) groups IRSs by comparing their pattern and magnitude, without attempting to interpret these features. It applies a hierarchical clustering method, grouping response patterns using a distance metric that combines the spatial correlation and Euclidian distance between IRS pairs. The two approaches were used to investigate whether different patterns of yield response could be related to different properties of the crop models, specifically their genealogy, calibration and process description. Although no single model property across a large model ensemble was found to explain the integrated yield response to temperature and precipitation perturbations, the application of the EDA and SDA approaches revealed their capability to distinguish: (i) stronger yield responses to precipitation for winter wheat than spring wheat; (ii) differing strengths of response to climate changes for years with anomalous weather conditions compared to period-average conditions; (iii) the influence of site conditions on yield patterns; (iv) similarities in IRS patterns among models with related genealogy; (v) similarities in IRS patterns for models with simpler process descriptions of root growth and water uptake compared to those with more complex descriptions; and (vi) a closer correspondence of IRS patterns in models using partitioning schemes to represent yield formation than in those using a harvest index. Such results can inform future crop modelling studies that seek to exploit the diversity of multi-model ensembles, by distinguishing ensemble members that span a wide range of responses as well as those that display implausible behaviour or strong mutual similarities. The full manuscript of this study is currently under revision (Fronzek et al. 2017).
|
|
Ewert, F., & al, E. (2015). Uncertainties in Scaling-Up Crop Models for Large-Area Climate Change Impact Assessments (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Problems related to food security and sustainable development are complex (Ericksenet al., 2009) and require consideration of biophysical, economic, political, and social factors, as well as their interactions, at the level of farms, regions, nations, and globally. While the solution to such societal problems may be largely political, there is a growing recognition of the need for science to provide sound information to decision-makers (Meinke et al., 2009). Achieving this, particularly in light of largely uncertain future climate and socio-economic changes, will necessitate integrated assessment approaches and appropriate integrated assessment modeling (IAM) tools to perform them. Recent (Ewertet al., 2009; van Ittersumet al., 2008) and ongoing (Rosenzweiget al., 2013) studies have tried to advance the integrated use of biophysical and economic models to represent better the complex interactions in agricultural systems that largely determine food supply and sustainable resource use. Nonetheless, the challenges for model integration across disciplines are substantial and range from methodological and technical details to an often still-weak conceptual basis on which to ground model integration (Ewertet al., 2009; Janssenet al., 2011). New generations of integrated assessment models based on well-understood, general relationships that are applicable to different agricultural systems across the world are still to be developed. Initial efforts are underway towards this advancement (Nelsonet al., 2014; Rosenzweiget al., 2013). Together with economic and climate models, crop models constitute an essential model group in IAM for large-area cropping systems climate change impact assessments. However, in addition to challenges associated with model integration, inadequate representation of many crops and crop management systems, as well as a lack of data for model initialization and calibration, limit the integration of crop models with climate and economic models (Ewertet al., 2014). A particular obstacle is the mismatch between the temporal and spatial scale of input/output variables required and delivered by the various models in the IAM model chain. Crop models are typically developed, tested, and calibrated for field-scale application (Booteet al., 2013; see also Part 1, Chapter 4 in this volume) and short time-series limited to one or few seasons. Although crop models are increasingly used for larger areas and longer time-periods (Bondeauet al., 2007; Deryng et al., 2011; Elliottet al., 2014) rigorous evaluation of such applications is pending. Among the different sources of uncertainty related to climate and soil data, model parameters, and structure, the uncertainty from methods used to scale-up crop models has received little attention, though recent evaluations indicate that upscaling of crop models for climate change impact assessment and the resulting errors and uncertainties deserve attention in order to advance crop modeling for climate change assessment (Ewertet al., 2014; R¨ otteret al., 2011). This reality is now reflected in the scientific agendas of new international research projects and programs such as the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP; Rosenzweiget al., 2013) and MACSUR (MACSUR, 2014). In this chapter, progress in evaluation of scaling methods with their related uncertainties is reviewed. Specific emphasis is on examining the results of systematic studies recently established in AgMIP and MACSUR. Main features of the respective simulation studies are presented together with preliminary results. Insights from these studies are summarized and conclusions for further work are drawn. No Label
|
|
Hoffmann, H., & Ewert, F. (2015). Review on scaling methods for crop models (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Agricultural systems cover a range of organisational levels and spatial and temporal scales. To capture multi-scale problems of sustainable management in agricultural systems, Integrated assessment modelling (IAM) including crop models is often applied which require methods of scale changes (scaling methods). Scaling methods, however, are often not well understood and are therefore sources of uncertainty in models. The present report summarizes scaling methods as developed and applied in recent years (e.g. in SEAMLESS-IF and MACSUR) in a classification scheme based on Ewert et al. (2011, 2006). Scale changes refer to different spatial, temporal and functional scales with changes in extent, resolution, and coverage rate. Accordingly, there are a number of different scaling methods that can include data extrapolation, aggregation and disaggregation, sampling and nested simulation. Comparative quantitative analysis of alternative scaling methods are currently under way and covered by other reports in MACSUR and several publications (e.g. Ewert et al., 2014; Hoffmann et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2015). The following classification of scaling methods assists to structure such analysis. Improved integration of scaling methods in IAM may help to overcome modelling limitations that are related to high data demand, complexity of models and scaling methods considered. No Label
|
|
Köchy, M., Aberton, M., Bannink, A., Banse, M., Brouwer, F., Brüser, K., et al. (2015). MACSUR — Summary of research results, phase 1: 2012-2015 (Vol. 6).
Abstract: MACSUR — Modelling European Agriculture with Climate Change for Food Security — is a knowledge hub that was formally created in June 2012 as a European scientific network. The strategic aim of the knowledge hub is to create a coordinated and globally visible network of European researchers and research groups, with intra- and interdisciplinary interaction and shared expertise creating synergies for the development of scientific resources (data, models, methods) to model the impacts of climate change on agriculture and related issues. This objective encompasses a wide range of political and sociological aspects, as well as the technical development of modelling capacity through impact assessments at different scales and assessing uncertainties in model outcomes. We achieve this through model intercomparisons and model improvements, harmonization and exchange of data sets, training in the selection and use of models, assessment of benefits of ensemble modelling, and cross-disciplinary linkages of models and tools. The project engages with a diverse range of stakeholder groups and to support the development of resources for capacity building of individuals and countries. Commensurate with this broad challenge, a network of currently 300 scientists (measured by the number of individuals on the central e-mail list) from 18 countries evolved from the original set of research groups selected by FACCE. In the spirit of creating and maintaining a network for intra- and interdisciplinary knowledge exchange, network activities focused on meetings of researchers for sharing expertise and, depending on group resources (both financial and personnel), development of collaborative research activities. The outcome of these activities is the enhanced knowledge of the individual researchers within the network, contributions to conference presentations and scholarly papers, input to stakeholders and the general public, organised courses for students, junior and senior scientists. The most visible outcome are the scientific results of the network activities, represented in the contributions of MACSUR members to the impressive number of more than 200 collaborative papers in peer-reviewed publications. Here, we present a selection of overview and cross-disciplinary papers which include contributions from MACSUR members. It highlights the major scientific challenges addressed, and the methodological solutions and insights obtained. Over and above these highlights, major achievements have been reached regarding data collection, data processing, evaluation, model testing, modelling assessments of the effects of agriculture on ecosystem services, policy, and development of scenarios. Details on these achievements in the context of MACSUR can be found in our online publication FACCE MACSUR Reports at http://ojs.macsur.eu.
Keywords: Hub
|
|
Köchy, M., Bannink, A., Banse, M., Brouwer, F., Brüser, K., Ewert, F., et al. (2015). MACSUR Phase 1 Final Administrative Report: Public release (Vol. 6).
Abstract: MACSUR’s foremost charge is improving the methodology for integrative inter-disciplinary modelling of European agriculture. In addition to technical changes, improvements include the involvement of stakeholders for setting research priorities, scenarios (if-then evaluations), and model parameters to more realistic or region-specific values. The Knowledge Hub currently brings together 300 members from 18 countries and has generated 300 scientific papers, over 500 presentations and 20 workshops and conferences within the first three years. Scientific results are communicated in conferences and workshops, where policymakers take part by invitation or because of professional interest. These events also provide opportunities for direct dialogues between policymakers and scientists. The primary form of output of the research network is scientific publications that are cited in policy documents by relevant administrative departments, ministries, intergovernmental agencies, and directorate-generals, and non-governmental interest groups. MACSUR members also contribute directly to policy documents as authors, e.g. the EEA’s indicator report on CC impacts or the IPCC’s 5th assessment report’s chapter on food security.
Keywords: Hub;
|