|
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Hoffmann, M.P.; Haakana, M.; Asseng, S.; Höhn, J.G.; Palosuo, T.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Fronzek, S.; Ewert, F.; Gaiser, T.; Kassie, B.T.; Paff, K.; Rezaei, E.E.; Rodríguez, A.; Semenov, M.; Srivastava, A.K.; Stratonovitch, P.; Tao, F.; Chen, Y.; Rötter, R.P. |
|
|
Title |
How does inter-annual variability of attainable yield affect the magnitude of yield gaps for wheat and maize? An analysis at ten sites |
Type |
Journal Article |
|
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Syst. |
|
|
Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
in press |
|
|
Keywords |
|
|
|
Abstract |
Highlights • The larger simulated attainable yield for a specific crop season, the larger the yield gap. • Average size of the yield gap is not affected by the inter-annual variability of attainable yield. • Technology levels (resource input and accessibility) determine average yield gap. • To reduce yield gaps in rainfed environments, farmers need to improve season-specific crop management. Abstract Provision of food security in the face of increasing global food demand requires narrowing of the gap between actual farmer’s yield and maximum attainable yield. So far, assessments of yield gaps have focused on average yield over 5–10 years, but yield gaps can vary substantially between crop seasons. In this study we hypothesized that climate-induced inter-annual yield variability and associated risk is a major barrier for farmers to invest, i.e. increase inputs to narrow the yield gap. We evaluated the importance of inter-annual attainable yield variability for the magnitude of the yield gap by utilizing data for wheat and maize at ten sites representing some major food production systems and a large range of climate and soil conditions across the world. Yield gaps were derived from the difference of simulated attainable yields and regional recorded farmer yields for 1981 to 2010. The size of the yield gap did not correlate with the amplitude of attainable yield variability at a site, but was rather associated with the level of available resources such as labor, fertilizer and plant protection inputs. For the sites in Africa, recorded yield reached only 20% of the attainable yield, while for European, Asian and North American sites it was 56–84%. Most sites showed that the higher the attainable yield of a specific season the larger was the yield gap. This significant relationship indicated that farmers were not able to take advantage of favorable seasonal weather conditions. To reduce yield gaps in the different environments, reliable seasonal weather forecasts would be required to allow farmers to manage each seasonal potential, i.e. overcoming season-specific yield limitations. |
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
0308521x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
|
Area |
CropM |
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4985 |
|
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
|
Author |
Hoffmann, M.P.; Haakana, M.; Asseng, S.; Höhn, J.G.; Palosuo, T.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Fronzek, S.; Ewert, F.; Gaiser, T.; Kassie, B.T.; Paff, K.; Rezaei, E.E.; Rodríguez, A.; Semenov, M.; Srivastava, A.K.; Stratonovitch, P.; Tao, F.; Chen, Y.; Rötter, R.P. |
|
|
Title |
How does inter-annual variability of attainable yield affect the magnitude of yield gaps for wheat and maize? An analysis at ten sites |
Type |
Journal Article |
|
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Syst. |
|
|
Volume |
159 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
199-208 |
|
|
Keywords |
|
|
|
Abstract |
Highlights • The larger simulated attainable yield for a specific crop season, the larger the yield gap. • Average size of the yield gap is not affected by the inter-annual variability of attainable yield. • Technology levels (resource input and accessibility) determine average yield gap. • To reduce yield gaps in rainfed environments, farmers need to improve season-specific crop management. Abstract Provision of food security in the face of increasing global food demand requires narrowing of the gap between actual farmer’s yield and maximum attainable yield. So far, assessments of yield gaps have focused on average yield over 5–10 years, but yield gaps can vary substantially between crop seasons. In this study we hypothesized that climate-induced inter-annual yield variability and associated risk is a major barrier for farmers to invest, i.e. increase inputs to narrow the yield gap. We evaluated the importance of inter-annual attainable yield variability for the magnitude of the yield gap by utilizing data for wheat and maize at ten sites representing some major food production systems and a large range of climate and soil conditions across the world. Yield gaps were derived from the difference of simulated attainable yields and regional recorded farmer yields for 1981 to 2010. The size of the yield gap did not correlate with the amplitude of attainable yield variability at a site, but was rather associated with the level of available resources such as labor, fertilizer and plant protection inputs. For the sites in Africa, recorded yield reached only 20% of the attainable yield, while for European, Asian and North American sites it was 56–84%. Most sites showed that the higher the attainable yield of a specific season the larger was the yield gap. This significant relationship indicated that farmers were not able to take advantage of favorable seasonal weather conditions. To reduce yield gaps in the different environments, reliable seasonal weather forecasts would be required to allow farmers to manage each seasonal potential, i.e. overcoming season-specific yield limitations. |
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
|
Summary Language |
phase 2+ |
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
0308521x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5185 |
|
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
|
Author |
Rötter, R.P.; Palosuo, T.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Angulo, C.; Bindi, M.; Ewert, F.; Ferrise, R.; Hlavinka, P.; Moriondo, M.; Nendel, C.; Olesen, J.E.; Patil, R.H.; Ruget, F.; Takác, J.; Trnka, M. |
|
|
Title |
Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models |
Type |
Journal Article |
|
Year |
2012 |
Publication |
Field Crops Research |
Abbreviated Journal |
Field Crops Research |
|
|
Volume |
133 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
23-36 |
|
|
Keywords |
climate; crop growth simulation; model comparison; spring barley; yield variability; uncertainty; change impacts; nitrogen dynamics; high-temperature; soil-moisture; elevated co2; ceres-wheat; data set; growth; drought; sensitivity |
|
|
Abstract |
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. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. |
|
|
Address |
2016-10-31 |
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
0378-4290 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
CropM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4803 |
|
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
|
Author |
Korhonen, P.; Palosuo, T.; Persson, T.; Höglind, M.; Jego, G.; Van Oijen, M.; Gustavsson, A.-M.; Belanger, G.; Virkajärvi, P. |
|
|
Title |
Modelling grass yields in northern climates – a comparison of three growth models for timothy |
Type |
Journal Article |
|
Year |
2018 |
Publication |
Field Crops Research |
Abbreviated Journal |
Field Crops Research |
|
|
Volume |
224 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
37-47 |
|
|
Keywords |
Forage grass; Model comparison; Timothy; Uncertainty; Yield; Nutritive-Value; Catimo Model; Nitrogen Balances; Simulation; Regrowth; Wheat; Stics; Dynamics; Harvest; Water |
|
|
Abstract |
During the past few years, several studies have compared the performance of crop simulation models to assess the uncertainties in model-based climate change impact assessments and other modelling studies. Many of these studies have concentrated on cereal crops, while fewer model comparisons have been conducted for grasses. We compared the predictions for timothy grass (Phleum pratertse L.) yields for first and second cuts along with the dynamics of above-ground biomass for the grass simulation models BASGRA and CATIMO, and the soil -crop model STICS. The models were calibrated and evaluated using field data from seven sites across Northern Europe and Canada with different climates, soil conditions and management practices. Altogether the models were compared using data on timothy grass from 33 combinations of sites, cultivars and management regimes. Model performances with two calibration approaches, cultivar-specific and generic calibrations, were compared. All the models studied estimated the dynamics of above-ground biomass and the leaf area index satisfactorily, but tended to underestimate the first cut yield. Cultivar-specific calibration resulted in more accurate first cut yield predictions than the generic calibration achieving root mean square errors approximately one third lower for the cultivar-specific calibration. For the second cut, the difference between the calibration methods was small. The results indicate that detailed soil process descriptions improved the overall model performance and the model responses to management, such as nitrogen applications. The results also suggest that taking the genetic variability into account between cultivars of timothy grass also improves the yield estimates. Calibrations using both spring and summer growth data simultaneously revealed that processes determining the growth in these two periods require further attention in model development. |
|
|
Address |
2018-07-12 |
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
0378-4290 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5206 |
|
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
|
Author |
Bindi, M.; Palosuo, T.; Trnka, M.; Semenov, M.A. |
|
|
Title |
Modelling climate change impacts on crop production for food security INTRODUCTION |
Type |
Journal Article |
|
Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Climate Research |
Abbreviated Journal |
Clim. Res. |
|
|
Volume |
65 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
3-5 |
|
|
Keywords |
Crop production; Climate change impact and adaptation assessments; Upscaling; Model ensembles |
|
|
Abstract |
Process-based crop models that synthesise the latest scientific understanding of biophysical processes are currently the primary scientific tools available to assess potential impacts of climate change on crop production. Important obstacles are still present, however, and must be overcome for improving crop modelling application in integrated assessments of risk, of sustainability and of crop-production resilience in the face of climate change (e.g. uncertainty analysis, model integration, etc.). The research networks MACSUR and AGMIP organised the CropM International Symposium and Workshop in Oslo, on 10-12 February 2014, and present this CR Special, discussing the state-of-the-art-as well as future perspectives-of crop modelling applications in climate change risk assessment, including the challenges of integrated assessments for the agricultural sector. |
|
|
Address |
2016-10-31 |
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
0936-577x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Editorial Material |
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
CropM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4785 |
|
Permanent link to this record |