| Home | [1–10] << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >> |
|
Siebert, S., Ewert, F., Rezaei, E. E., Kage, H., & Grass, R. (2014). Impact of heat stress on crop yield-on the importance of considering canopy temperature. Environ. Res. Lett., 9(4).
Abstract: Increasing crop productivity while simultaneously reducing the environmental footprint of crop production is considered a major challenge for the coming decades. Even short episodes of heat stress can reduce crop yield considerably causing low resource use efficiency. Studies on the impact of heat stress on crop yields over larger regions generally rely on temperatures measured by standard weather stations at 2 m height. Canopy temperatures measured in this study in field plots of rye were up to 7 degrees C higher than air temperature measured at typical weather station height with the differences in temperatures controlled by soil moisture contents. Relationships between heat stress and grain number derived from controlled environment studies were only confirmed under field conditions when canopy temperature was used to calculate stress thermal time. By using hourly mean temperatures measured by 78 weather stations located across Germany for the period 1994-2009 it is estimated, that mean yield declines in wheat due to heat stress during flowering were 0.7% when temperatures are measured at 2 m height, but yield declines increase to 22% for temperatures measured at the ground. These results suggest that canopy temperature should be simulated or estimated to reduce uncertainty in assessing heat stress impacts on crop yield.
|
|
Sándor, R., Barcza, Z., Acutis, M., Doro, L., Hidy, D., Köchy, M., et al. (2016). Multi-model simulation of soil temperature, soil water content and biomass in Euro-Mediterranean grasslands: Uncertainties and ensemble performance. European Journal of Agronomy, .
Abstract: • We simulate biomass, soil water content (SWC) and temperature (ST) in grasslands. • We compare nine models to the multi-model median (MMM) at nine sites. • With model calibration, we obtain satisfactory estimates of ST, less of SWC and biomass. • We observe discrepancies across models in the simulation of grassland processes. • We improve performance with multi-model approach. This study presents results from a major grassland model intercomparison exercise, and highlights the main challenges faced in the implementation of a multi-model ensemble prediction system in grasslands. Nine, independently developed simulation models linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to grassland biogeochemical cycles and production were compared in a simulation of soil water content (SWC) and soil temperature (ST) in the topsoil, and of biomass production. The results were assessed against SWC and ST data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions – Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland – and against yield measurements from the same sites and other experimental grassland sites in Europe and Israel. We present a comparison of model estimates from individual models to the multi-model ensemble (represented by multi-model median: MMM). With calibration (seven out of nine models), the performances were acceptable for weekly-aggregated ST (R² > 0.7 with individual models and >0.8–0.9 with MMM), but less satisfactory with SWC (R² < 0.6 with individual models and < ∼ 0.5 with MMM) and biomass (R² < ∼0.3 with both individual models and MMM). With individual models, maximum biases of about −5 °C for ST, −0.3 m3 m−3 for SWC and 360 g DM m−2 for yield, as well as negative modelling efficiencies and some high relative root mean square errors indicate low model performance, especially for biomass. We also found substantial discrepancies across different models, indicating considerable uncertainties regarding the simulation of grassland processes. The multi-model approach allowed for improved performance, but further progress is strongly needed in the way models represent processes in managed grassland systems.
Keywords: Biomass; Grasslands; Modelling; Multi-model ensemble; Soil processes
Area: LiveM
|
|
Doro, L., Jones, C., Williams, J. R., Norfleet, M. L., Izaurralde, R. C., Wang, X., et al. (2017). The Variable Saturation Hydraulic Conductivity Method for Improving Soil Water Content Simulation in EPIC and APEX Models. Vadose Zone Journal, 16(13).
Abstract: Soil water percolation is a key process in the life cycle of water in fields, watersheds, and river basins. The Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) and the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender (APEX) are continuous models developed for evaluating the environmental effects of agricultural management. Traditionally, these models have simulated soil water percolation processes using a tipping-bucket approach, with the rate of flow limited by the saturated hydraulic conductivity. This simple approach often leads to inaccuracy in simulating elevated soil water conditions where soil water content (SWC) levels may remain above field capacity under prolonged wet weather periods or limited drainage. To overcome this deficiency, a new sub-model, the variable saturation hydraulic conductivity (VSHC) method, was developed for simulating soil water percolation processes using a nonlinear equation to estimate the effective hydraulic conductivity as a function of the SWC and soil properties. The VSHC method was evaluated at three sites in the United States and two sites in Europe. In addition, a numerical solution of the Richards equation was used as a benchmark for SWC comparison. Results show that the VSHC method substantially improves the accuracy of the SWC simulation in long-term simulations, particularly during wet periods. At the watershed scale, results on the Riesel Y2 watershed indicate that the VSHC method enhances model performance in the high-flow regime of channel peak flows because of the improved estimation of SWC, which implies that the improved SWC simulation at the field scale is beneficial to hydrologic modeling at the watershed scale.
|