|
|
Kraus, D., Weller, S., Klatt, S., Haas, E., Wassmann, R., Kiese, R., et al. (2015). A new LandscapeDNDC biogeochemical module to predict CH4 and N2O emissions from lowland rice and upland cropping systems. Plant Soil, 386(1-2), 125–149.
Abstract: Replacing paddy rice by upland systems such as maize cultivation is an on-going trend in SE Asia caused by increasing water scarcity and higher demand for meat. How such land management changes will feedback on soil C and N cycles and soil greenhouse gas emissions is not well understood at present. A new LandscapeDNDC biogeochemical module was developed that allows the effect of land management changes on soil C and N cycle to be simulated. The new module is applied in combination with further modules simulating microclimate and crop growth and evaluated against observations from field experiments. The model simulations agree well with observed dynamics of CH (4) emissions in paddy rice depending on changes in climatic conditions and agricultural management. Magnitude and peak emission periods of N (2) O from maize cultivation are simulated correctly, though there are still deficits in reproducing day-to-day dynamics. These shortcomings are most likely related to simulated soil hydrology and may only be resolved if LandscapeDNDC is coupled to more complex hydrological models. LandscapeDNDC allows for simulation of changing land management practices in SE Asia. The possibility to couple LandscapeDNDC to more complex hydrological models is a feature needed to better understand related effects on soil-atmosphere-hydrosphere interactions.
|
|
|
|
De Swaef, T., Bellocchi, G., Aper, J., Lootens, P., & Roldan-Ruiz, I. (2019). Use of identifiability analysis in designing phenotyping experiments for modelling forage production and quality. J. Experim. Bot., 70(9), 2587–2604.
Abstract: Agricultural systems models are complex and tend to be over-parameterized with respect to observational datasets. Practical identifiability analysis based on local sensitivity analysis has proved effective in investigating identifiable parameter sets in environmental models, but has not been applied to agricultural systems models. Here, we demonstrate that identifiability analysis improves experimental design to ensure independent parameter estimation for yield and quality outputs of a complex grassland model. The Pasture Simulation model (PaSim) was used to demonstrate the effectiveness of practical identifiability analysis in designing experiments and measurement protocols within phe-notyping experiments with perennial ryegrass. Virtual experiments were designed combining three factors: frequency of measurements, duration of the experiment. and location of trials. Our results demonstrate that (i) PaSim provides sufficient detail in terms of simulating biomass yield and quality of perennial ryegrass for use in breeding, (ii) typical breeding trials are insufficient to parameterize all influential parameters, (iii) the frequency of measurements is more important than the number of growing seasons to improve the identifiability of PaSim parameters, and (iv) identifiability analysis provides a sound approach for optimizing the design of multi-location trials. Practical identifiability analysis can play an important role in ensuring proper exploitation of phenotypic data and cost-effective multi-location experimental designs. Considering the growing importance of simulation models, this study supports the design of experiments and measurement protocols in the phenotyping networks that have recently been organized.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
