|
|
Patil, R. H., Laegdsmand, M., Olesen, J. E., & Porter, J. R. (2014). Soil temperature manipulation to study global warming effects in arable land: performance of buried heating-cable method. Environment and Ecology Research, 1(4), 196–204.
Abstract: Buried heating-cable method for manipulating soil temperature was designed and tested its performance in large concrete lysimeters grown with the wheat crop in Denmark. Soil temperature in heated plots was elevated by 5℃ compared with that in control by burying heating-cable at 0.1 m depth in a plough layer. Temperature sensors were placed at 0.05, 0.1 and 0.25 m depths in soil, and 0.1 m above the soil surface in all plots, which were connected to an automated data logger. Soil-warming setup was able to maintain a mean seasonal temperature difference of 5.0 ± 0.005℃ between heated and control plots at 0.1 m depth while the mean seasonal rise in soil temperature in the top 0.25 m depth (plough layer) was 3℃. Soil temperature in control plots froze (≤ 0℃) for 15 and 13 days respectively at 0.05 and 0.1 m depths while it did not in heated plots during the coldest period (Nov-Apr). This study clearly showed the efficacy of buried heating-cable technique in simulating soil temperature, and thus offers a simple, effective and alternative technique to study soil biogeochemical processes under warmer climates. This technique, however, decouples below-ground soil responses from that of above-ground vegetation response as this method heats only the soil. Therefore, using infrared heaters seems to represent natural climate warming (both air and soil) much more closely and may be used for future climate manipulation field studies.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Dumont, B., Vancutsem, F., Seutin, B., Bodson, B., Destain, J. - P., & Destain, M. - F. (2012). Simulation de la croissance du blé à l’aide de modèles écophysiologiques: Synthèse bibliographique des méthodes, potentialités et limitations. Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement, 163, 376–386.
Abstract: Crop models describe the growth and development of a crop interacting with its surrounding agro-environmental conditions (soil, climate and the close conditions of the plant). However, the implementation of such models remains difficult because of the high number of explanatory variables and parameters. It often happens that important discrepancies appear between measured and simulated values. This article aims to highlight the different sources of uncertainty related to the use of crop models, as well as the actual methods that allow a compensation for or, at least, a consideration of these sources of error during analysis of the model results. This article presents a literature review, which firstly synthesises the general mathematical structure of crop models. The main criteria for evaluating crop models are then described. Finally, several methods used for improving models are given. Parameter estimation methods, including frequentist and Bayesian approaches, are presented and data assimilation methods are reviewed.
|
|
|
|
Sandor, R., Ehrhardt, F., Grace, P., Recous, S., Smith, P., Snow, V., et al. (2020). Ensemble modelling of carbon fluxes in grasslands and croplands. Field Crops Research, 252, 107791.
Abstract: Croplands and grasslands are agricultural systems that contribute to land–atmosphere exchanges of carbon (C). We evaluated and compared gross primary production (GPP), ecosystem respiration (RECO), net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO2, and two derived outputs – C use efficiency (CUE=-NEE/GPP) and C emission intensity (IntC= -NEE/Offtake [grazed or harvested biomass]). The outputs came from 23 models (11 crop-specific, eight grassland-specific, and four models covering both systems) at three cropping sites over several rotations with spring and winter cereals, soybean and rapeseed in Canada, France and India, and two temperate permanent grasslands in France and the United Kingdom. The models were run independently over multi-year simulation periods in five stages (S), either blind with no calibration and initialization data (S1), using historical management and climate for initialization (S2), calibrated against plant data (S3), plant and soil data together (S4), or with the addition of C and N fluxes (S5). Here, we provide a framework to address methodological uncertainties and contextualize results. Most of the models overestimated or underestimated the C fluxes observed during the growing seasons (or the whole years for grasslands), with substantial differences between models. For each simulated variable, changes in the multi-model median (MMM) from S1 to S5 was used as a descriptor of the ensemble performance. Overall, the greatest improvements (MMM approaching the mean of observations) were achieved at S3 or higher calibration stages. For instance, grassland GPP MMM was equal to 1632 g C m−2 yr-1 (S5) while the observed mean was equal to 1763 m-2 yr-1 (average for two sites). Nash-Sutcliffe modelling efficiency coefficients indicated that MMM outperformed individual models in 92.3 % of cases. Our study suggests a cautious use of large-scale, multi-model ensembles to estimate C fluxes in agricultural sites if some site-specific plant and soil observations are available for model calibration. The further development of crop/grassland ensemble modelling will hinge upon the interpretation of results in light of the way models represent the processes underlying C fluxes in complex agricultural systems (grassland and crop rotations including fallow periods).
|
|
|
|
Tao, F., Palosuo, T., Roetter, R. P., Hernandez Diaz-Ambrona, C. G., Ines Minguez, M., Semenov, M. A., et al. (2020). Why do crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections? A comprehensive analysis based on eight barley crop models. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 281, 107851.
Abstract: Robust projections of climate impact on crop growth and productivity by crop models are key to designing effective adaptations to cope with future climate risk. However, current crop models diverge strongly in their climate impact projections. Previous studies tried to compare or improve crop models regarding the impact of one single climate variable. However, this approach is insufficient, considering that crop growth and yield are affected by the interactive impacts of multiple climate change factors and multiple interrelated biophysical processes. Here, a new comprehensive analysis was conducted to look holistically at the reasons why crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections and to investigate which biophysical processes and knowledge gaps are key factors affecting this uncertainty and should be given the highest priorities for improvement. First, eight barley models and eight climate projections for the 2050s were applied to investigate the uncertainty from crop model structure in climate impact projections for barley growth and yield at two sites: Jokioinen, Finland (Boreal) and Lleida, Spain (Mediterranean). Sensitivity analyses were then conducted on the responses of major crop processes to major climatic variables including temperature, precipitation, irradiation, and CO2, as well as their interactions, for each of the eight crop models. The results showed that the temperature and CO2 relationships in the models were the major sources of the large discrepancies among the models in climate impact projections. In particular, the impacts of increases in temperature and CO2 on leaf area development were identified as the major causes for the large uncertainty in simulating changes in evapotranspiration, above-ground biomass, and grain yield. Our findings highlight that advancements in understanding the basic processes and thresholds by which climate warming and CO2 increases will affect leaf area development, crop evapotranspiration, photosynthesis, and grain formation in contrasting environments are needed for modeling their impacts.
|
|
