|
|
Cammarano, D., Rötter, P., Ewert, F., Palosuo, T., Bindi, M., Kersebaum, K. C., et al. (2013). Challenges for Agro-Ecosystem Modelling in Climate Change Risk Assessment for major European Crops and Farming systems. (pp. 555–564).
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Kuhnert, M., Yeluripati, J., Smith, P., Hoffmann, H., van Oijen, M., Constantin, J., et al. (2016). Impact analysis of climate data aggregation at different spatial scales on simulated net primary productivity for croplands. European Journal of Agronomy, 88, 41–52.
Abstract: For spatial crop and agro-systems modelling, there is often a discrepancy between the scale of measured driving data and the target resolution. Spatial data aggregation is often necessary, which can introduce additional uncertainty into the simulation results. Previous studies have shown that climate data aggregation has little effect on simulation of phenological stages, but effects on net primary production (NPP) might still be expected through changing the length of the growing season and the period of grain filling. This study investigates the impact of spatial climate data aggregation on NPP simulation results, applying eleven different models for the same study region (∼34,000 km2), situated in Western Germany. To isolate effects of climate, soil data and management were assumed to be constant over the entire study area and over the entire study period of 29 years. Two crops, winter wheat and silage maize, were tested as monocultures. Compared to the impact of climate data aggregation on yield, the effect on NPP is in a similar range, but is slightly lower, with only small impacts on averages over the entire simulation period and study region. Maximum differences between the five scales in the range of 1–100 km grid cells show changes of 0.4–7.8% and 0.0–4.8% for wheat and maize, respectively, whereas the simulated potential NPP averages of the models show a wide range (1.9–4.2 g C m−2 d−1 and 2.7–6.1 g C m−2 d−1for wheat and maize, respectively). The impact of the spatial aggregation was also tested for shorter time periods, to see if impacts over shorter periods attenuate over longer periods. The results show larger impacts for single years (up to 9.4% for wheat and up to 13.6% for maize). An analysis of extreme weather conditions shows an aggregation effect in vulnerability up to 12.8% and 15.5% between the different resolutions for wheat and maize, respectively. Simulations of NPP averages over larger areas (e.g. regional scale) and longer time periods (several years) are relatively insensitive to climate data.
|
|
|
|
Maiorano, A., Martre, P., Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Müller, C., Rötter, R. P., et al. (2016). Crop model improvement reduces the uncertainty of the response to temperature of multi-model ensembles. Field Crops Research, 202, 5–20.
Abstract: To improve climate change impact estimates and to quantify their uncertainty, multi-model ensembles (MMEs) have been suggested. Model improvements can improve the accuracy of simulations and reduce the uncertainty of climate change impact assessments. Furthermore, they can reduce the number of models needed in a MME. Herein, 15 wheat growth models of a larger MME were improved through re-parameterization and/or incorporating or modifying heat stress effects on phenology, leaf growth and senescence, biomass growth, and grain number and size using detailed field experimental data from the USDA Hot Serial Cereal experiment (calibration data set). Simulation results from before and after model improvement were then evaluated with independent field experiments from a CIMMYT world-wide field trial network (evaluation data set). Model improvements decreased the variation (10th to 90th model ensemble percentile range) of grain yields simulated by the MME on average by 39% in the calibration data set and by 26% in the independent evaluation data set for crops grown in mean seasonal temperatures >24 °C. MME mean squared error in simulating grain yield decreased by 37%. A reduction in MME uncertainty range by 27% increased MME prediction skills by 47%. Results suggest that the mean level of variation observed in field experiments and used as a benchmark can be reached with half the number of models in the MME. Improving crop models is therefore important to increase the certainty of model-based impact assessments and allow more practical, i.e. smaller MMEs to be used effectively.
|
|
|
|
Ewert, F., Rötter, R., & Brüser, K. (2015). CropM: Understanding and Modelling Impacts of Climate Change on Crop Production. In FACCE MACSUR Reports (Vol. 6, pp. SP6–2). Brussels.
Abstract: Key ambition:To developa shared comprehensive information system on the impacts of climate change on European crop production and food securityfirst shared pan-continental assessments and tools(Full) range of important crops and important crop rotationsImproved management and analysis of dataModel improvement (stresses and factors not yet accounted for)Advanced scaling methodsAdvanced link to farm and sector modelsComprehensive uncertainty assessment and reportingTo train integrative crop modelerData. for better understanding and modelling climate change impactEvaluation of data quality (platinum, gold, silver)Quantify data gaps for modellingEmpirical analysis of crop responses to past climate variability and changeObserved adaptation options and their efficacyEffect of extreme events (past analysis and projections)Climate change scenariosConcept for data management, data journalUncertaintyMethodology & protocols for uncertainty analysisMethodology for standardized model evaluationLocal-scale climate scenarios & uncertainties in climate projectionsBasic methodology for probabilistic assessment of CC impacts using impact response surfacesMethodology for probabilistic evaluation of alternative adaptation options Main aims in MACSUR2:Improve crop model to better capture extremesComplement knowledge from crop models with empirical crop-weather analysisConsider management variables in simulationsFull range of methods for analysing uncertainty in climate impact assessmentsEvaluate potential adaptation optionsContributing to cross-cutting issues and case studies.Further the links with other modelling activitiesLink local to European and global responses No Label
|
|
