| Home | << 1 2 3 >> |
|
Kollas, C., Kersebaum, K. C., Nendel, C., Manevski, K., Müller, C., Palosuo, T., et al. (2015). Crop rotation modelling—A European model intercomparison. European Journal of Agronomy, 70, 98–111.
Abstract: • First model inter-comparison on crop rotations. • Continuous simulation of multi-year crop rotations yields outperformed single-year simulation. • Low accuracy of yield predictions in less commonly modelled crops such as potato, radish, grass vegetation. • Multi-model mean prediction was found to minimise the likely error arising from single-model predictions. • The representation of intermediate crops and carry-over effects in the models require further research efforts.
Diversification of crop rotations is considered an option to increase the resilience of European crop production under climate change. So far, however, many crop simulation studies have focused on predicting single crops in separate one-year simulations. Here, we compared the capability of fifteen crop growth simulation models to predict yields in crop rotations at five sites across Europe under minimal calibration. Crop rotations encompassed 301 seasons of ten crop types common to European agriculture and a diverse set of treatments (irrigation, fertilisation, CO2 concentration, soil types, tillage, residues, intermediate or catch crops). We found that the continuous simulation of multi-year crop rotations yielded results of slightly higher quality compared to the simulation of single years and single crops. Intermediate crops (oilseed radish and grass vegetation) were simulated less accurately than main crops (cereals). The majority of models performed better for the treatments of increased CO2 and nitrogen fertilisation than for irrigation and soil-related treatments. The yield simulation of the multi-model ensemble reduced the error compared to single-model simulations. The low degree of superiority of continuous simulations over single year simulation was caused by (a) insufficiently parameterised crops, which affect the performance of the following crop, and (b) the lack of growth-limiting water and/or nitrogen in the crop rotations under investigation. In order to achieve a sound representation of crop rotations, further research is required to synthesise existing knowledge of the physiology of intermediate crops and of carry-over effects from the preceding to the following crop, and to implement/improve the modelling of processes that condition these effects. |
|
Ventrella, D., Charfeddine, M., Giglio, L., & Castellini, M. (2012). Application of DSSAT models for an agronomic adaptation strategy under climate change in Southern of Italy: optimum sowing and transplanting time for winter durum wheat and tomato. Ital. J. Agron., 7(1), 16.
Abstract: Many climate change studies have been carried out in different parts of the world to assess climate change vulnerability and adaptation capacity of agricultural crops for certain environments characterized from climatic, pedological and agronomical point of view. The objective of this study was to analyse the productive response of winter durum wheat and tomato to climate change and sowing/transplanting time in one of the most productive areas of Italy (i.e. Capitanata, Puglia), using CERES-Wheat and CROPGRO cropping system models. Three climatic datasets were used: i) a single dataset (50 km x 50 km) provided by the JRC European centre for the period 1975- 2005; two datasets from HadCM3 for the IPCC A2 GHG scenario for time slices with +2°C (centred over 2030-2060) and +5°C (centred over 2070-2099), respectively. All three datasets were used to generate synthetic climate series using a weather simulator (model LARS-WG). No negative yield effects of climate change were observed for winter durum wheat with delayed sowing (from 330 to 345 DOY) increasing the average dry matter grain yield under forecasted scenarios. Instead, the warmer temperatures were primarily shown to accelerate the phenology, resulting in decreased yield for tomato under the + 5°C future climate scenario. In general, under global temperature increase by 5°C, early transplanting times could minimize the negative impact of climate change on crop productivity but the intensity of this effect was not sufficient to restore the current production levels of tomato cultivated in southern Italy.
Keywords: DSSAT model; climate change; winter durum wheat; tomato; sowing time; transplanting time
|
|
Ventrella, D., Giglio, L., Charfeddine, M., Lopez, R., Castellini, M., Sollitto, D., et al. (2012). Climate change impact on crop rotations of winter durum wheat and tomato in southern Italy: yield analysis and soil fertility. Ital. J. Agron., 7(1), 15.
Abstract: Cropping systems are affected by climate change because of the strong relationship between crop development, growth, yield, CO2 atmospheric concentration and climate conditions. The increasing temperatures and the reduction of available water resources may result in negative impacts on the agricultural activity in Mediterranean environments than other areas. In this study the CERES-Wheat and CROPGRO-Tomato models were used to assess the effects of climate change on winter wheat (Triticum durum L.) and processing tomato (Lycopersicon aesculentum Mill.) in one of most productive areas of Italy, located in the northern part of the Puglia region. In particular we have compared three different General Circulation Models (HadCM3, CCSM3, ECHAM5) subjected to a statistical downscaling under two future IPCC scenarios (B1 and A2). The analysis was carried out at regional scale repeating the simulations for seven homogeneous area characterizing the spatial variability of the region. In the second part of the study, considering only HadCM3 data set, climate change impact on long-term sequences of the two crops combined in three crop rotations were evaluated in terms of yield performances and soil fertility as indicated by the soil organic content of carbon and nitrogen. The comparison between GCMs showed no significant differences for winter durum wheat yield, while noticeable differences were found for yield and irrigation requirements of tomato. Under future scenarios, the production levels were reduced for tomato, whereas positive yield effects were observed for winter durum wheat. For winter durum wheat the simulation indicated that two- and three-year rotations, including one year of tomato cultivation, improved the cereal yield and this positive effect maintained its validity also in future scenarios. For both crops higher requirements of water and nitrogen were predicted under future scenarios. This result coupled with the decrease of yield caused negative reduction of water use efficiency and nitrogen use efficiency for tomato cultivation.
|
|
Kersebaum, K., Kroes, J., Gobin, A., Takáč, J., Hlavinka, P., Trnka, M., et al. (2016). Assessing uncertainties of water footprints using an ensemble of crop growth models on winter wheat. Water, 8(12), 571.
Abstract: Crop productivity and water consumption form the basis to calculate the water footprint (WF) of a specific crop. Under current climate conditions, calculated evapotranspiration is related to observed crop yields to calculate WF. The assessment of WF under future climate conditions requires the simulation of crop yields adding further uncertainty. To assess the uncertainty of model based assessments of WF, an ensemble of crop models was applied to data from five field experiments across Europe. Only limited data were provided for a rough calibration, which corresponds to a typical situation for regional assessments, where data availability is limited. Up to eight models were applied for wheat. The coefficient of variation for the simulated actual evapotranspiration between models was in the range of 13%–19%, which was higher than the inter-annual variability. Simulated yields showed a higher variability between models in the range of 17%–39%. Models responded differently to elevated CO2 in a FACE (Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment) experiment, especially regarding the reduction of water consumption. The variability of calculated WF between models was in the range of 15%–49%. Yield predictions contributed more to this variance than the estimation of water consumption. Transpiration accounts on average for 51%–68% of the total actual evapotranspiration.
|