| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–20] |
|
Kersebaum, K. C. (2015). Simulating crop rotations and management across climatic zones in Europe – an intercomparison study using fifteen models (Vol. 5).
Abstract: Process based crop simulation models are widely used to assess crop production under current or future climate conditions. Most studies on climate impacts on crop growth are so far focussed on single crops and single-year simulations. However, it is known that the position of crops within a rotation can influence crop growth significantly due to carry-over effects between seasons. We compared crop models on crop rotation effects from five sites across Central Europe providing in total data of 301 cropping seasons and treatments. Treatments comprised irrigation, nitrogen (N) fertilisation, atmospheric [CO2], tillage, residue management, cover crops and soils. Crop rotations were simulated with 15 crop models as single-year simulations and/or continuous simulations over whole crop rotations in “restricted calibration” runs. Lower RMSE between observed and simulated crop yields were obtained for continuous runs as compared to single-year runs. Relatively low carry-over effects were observed due to equilibration of soil water over winter and high N fertilisation levels. Consistently, a sub-set of models applied to an additional rainfed Mediterranean site reproduced larger carry-over effects of soil water. Irrigation, N supply, cover crops and atmospheric [CO2] showed clearer effects than tillage and crop residue management. Model performance varied distinctly between crops showing the necessity to provide experimental data for model calibration also for less prominent crops. No Label
|
|
Sharif, B., Mankowski, D., Kersebaum, K. C., Trnka, M., Schelde, K., & Olsesen, J. E. (2015). Empirical analysis on crop-weather relationships (Vol. 6).
Abstract: There have been several studies, where process-based crop models are developed, used and compared in order to project crop production and corresponding model uncertainties under climate change. Despite many advances in this field, there are some correlations between climate variables and crop growth, such as pest and diseases, that is often absent in process-based models. Such relationships can be simulated using empirical models. In this study, several statistical techniques were applied on winter oilseed rape data collected in some European countries. The empirical models were then used to predict yield of winter oilseed rape in the field experiments during more than 20 years, up to 2013. Results suggest that newly developed regression techniques such as shrinkage methods work well both in yield projections and finding the influential climatic variables. Many of regression techniques agree in terms of yield prediction; however, choice of significant climate variables is rather sensitive to the choice of regression technique. No Label
|
|
Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K., Christian,, & Olesen, J. E. (2015). Description of the compiled experimental data available in the MACSUR CropM database (Vol. 6).
Abstract: The input data necessary for crop model simulations and data for their calibration/validation (and thus requirements for observations and measurements in suitable experiments) have been collected through out the project together with data for additional analysis of abiotic factors influencing yields. A list of possible dataset was collated in the first year of project however very few of the existing datasets were found usable for the crop model simulation as they fell short of the requirements defined in the part 2.3. However database has been populated as planned with the results of the ongoing MACSUR studies and will serve in the same way for the MACSUR 2 duration. No Label
|
|
Ewert, F., Rötter, R. P., Bindi, M., Webber, H., Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K., et al. (2015). Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change (Vol. 6).
Abstract: The complexity of risks posed by climate change and possible adaptations for crop production has called for integrated assessment and modelling (IAM) approaches linking biophysical and economic models. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the present state of crop modelling to assess climate change risks to food production and to which extent crop models comply with IAM demands. Considerable progress has been made in modelling effects of climate variables, where crop models best satisfy IAM demands. Demands are partly satisfied for simulating commonly required assessment variables. However, progress on the number of simulated crops, uncertainty propagation related to model parameters and structure, adaptations and scaling are less advanced and lagging behind IAM demands. The limitations are considered substantial and apply to a different extent to all crop models. Overcoming these limitations will require joint efforts, and consideration of novel modelling approaches. No Label
|
|
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.
|