| Home | [1–10] << 11 12 13 14 15 16 >> |
|
Zhang, S., Tao, F., & Zhang, Z. (2017). Uncertainty from model structure is larger than that from model parameters in simulating rice phenology in China. Europ. J. Agron., 87, 30–39.
Abstract: Rice models have been widely used in simulating and predicting rice phenology in contrasting climate zones, however the uncertainties from model structure (different equations or models) and/or model parameters were rarely investigated. Here, five rice phenological models/modules (Le., CERES-Rice, ORYZA2000, RCM, Beta Model and SIMRIW) were applied to simulate rice phenology at 23 experimental stations from 1992 to 2009 in two major rice cultivation regions of China: the northeastern China and the southwestern China. To investigate the uncertainties from model biophysical parameters, each model was run with randomly perturbed 50 sets of parameters. The results showed that the median of ensemble simulations were better than the simulation by most models. Models couldn’t simulate well in some specific years despite of parameters optimization, suggesting model structure limit model performance in some cases. The models adopting accumulative thermal time function (e.g., CERES-Rice and ORYZA2000) had better performance in the southwestern China, in contrast, those adopting exponential function (e.g., Beta model and RCM model) had better performance in the northeastern China. In northeastern China, the contribution of model structure and model parameters to model total variance was, respectively, about 55.90% and 44.10% in simulating heading date, and about 75.43% and 24.57% in simulating maturity date. In the southwestern China, the contribution of model structure and model parameters to model total variance was, respectively, about 79.97% and 27.03% in simulating heading date, about 92.15% and 7.85% in simulating maturity date. Uncertainty from model structure was the most relevant source. The results highlight that the temperature response functions of rice development rate under extreme climate conditions should be improved based on environment-controlled experimental data.
|
|
Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., et al. (2012). Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models. Field Crops Research, 133, 23–36.
Abstract: In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
Tao, F., Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Höhn, J., Peltonen-Sainio, P., Rajala, A., et al. (2015). Assessing climate effects on wheat yield and water use in Finland using a super-ensemble-based probabilistic approach. Clim. Res., 65, 23–37.
Abstract: We adapted a large area crop model, MCWLA-Wheat, to winter wheat Triticum aestivum L. and spring wheat in Finland. We then applied Bayesian probability inversion and a Markov Chain Monte Carlo technique to analyze uncertainties in parameter estimations and to optimize parameters. Finally, a super-ensemble-based probabilistic projection system was updated and applied to project the effects of climate change on wheat productivity and water use in Finland. The system used 6 climate scenarios and 20 sets of crop model parameters. We projected spatiotemporal changes of wheat productivity and water use due to climate change/variability during 2021-2040, 2041-2070, and 2071-2100. The results indicate that with a high probability wheat yields will increase substantially in Finland under the tested climate change scenarios, and spring wheat can benefit more from climate change than winter wheat. Nevertheless, in some areas of southern Finland, wheat production will face increasing risk of high temperature and drought, which can offset the benefits of climate change on wheat yield, resulting in an increase in yield variability and about 30% probability of yield decrease for spring wheat. Compared with spring wheat, the development, photosynthesis, and consequently yield will be much less enhanced for winter wheat, which, together with the risk of extreme weather, will result in an up to 56% probability of yield decrease in eastern parts of Finland. Our study explicitly para meterized the effects of extreme temperature and drought stress on wheat yields, and accounted for a wide range of wheat cultivars with contrasting phenological characteristics and thermal requirements.
|
|
Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. - C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., et al. (2012). Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models. Field Crops Research, 133, 23–36.
Abstract: ► We compared nine crop simulation models for spring barley at seven sites in Europe. ► Applying crop models with restricted calibration leads to high uncertainties. ► Multi-crop model mean yield estimates were in good agreement with observations. ► The degree of uncertainty for simulated grain yield of barley was similar to winter wheat. ► We need more suitable data enabling us to verify different processes in the models. In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction.
|
|
Pasqui, M., & Di Giuseppe, E. (2019). Climate change, future warming, and adaptation in Europe. Animal Frontiers, 9(1), 6–11.
Abstract: In recent decades, the increased temperatures reported in Europe and in the Mediterranean basin represent one of the clearest footprints of climate change along with increased frequency of heat waves. These climate modifications put the environment and human activities under strong pressure with a resulting need for designing new adaptation and mitigation strategies. The climate change challenge is unprecedented for humanity and is recognized as a priority topic for future research. Changes in the way we think and behave are critical challenges at the global and regional levels.
|