|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A., Bellocchi, G., Hutchings, N., Olesen, J., & Saetnan, E. (2014). AnimalChange. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: The EU-FP7 project AnimalChange (AN Integration of Mitigation and Adaptation options for sustainable Livestock production under climate CHANGE, http://www.animalchange.eu, 2011-2015) addresses mitigation and adaptation options and provides scientific guidance for their integration in sustainable development pathways for livestock production under climate change in Europe, Northern and Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America. The project provides insights, innovations, tools and models for livestock production incorporating socio-economic and environmental (particularly GHG emission) variables. Scenario studies are carried out at scales ranging from animal and pasture, to farm and to region, for given management options. A wide range of livestock production systems is included in the project. The core analytical spine of the project is a series of coupled biophysical and socio-economic models combined with experimentation. This allows exploring future scenarios for the livestock sector under baseline and atmospheric CO2 stabilization scenarios. These scenarios are first constructed and then elaborated and enriched by breakthrough mitigation and adaptation options at field and animal scales, integrated and evaluated at farm scale and finally used to assess policy options and their socio-economic consequences. The modelling results are useful for governments, agricultural and food industry and the agricultural sector (farmers). There are many synergies between the European activities of AnimalChange and those of the LiveM theme of MACSUR, in particular with respect to access to livestock production datasets, dialogue with stakeholders and comparison and integration of grassland and livestock models with crop and socio-economic models in pilot studies at a variety of scales.
|
|
|
|
Olesen, J. E., Porter, J. R., & Christensen, J. H. (2014). Centre for Regional change in the Earth System. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Centre for Regionalchange in the Earth System (CRES, cres-centre.net) is funded by the DanishStrategic Research Council for the period 2009-2014 and is coordinated by theDanish Meteorological Institute. CRES has established a coordinated researcheffort aiming to improve societal preparedness for climate change, inparticular for Denmark. The overall objective of CRES is to extend knowledge ofand reduce the uncertainties surrounding regional climate change and itsimpacts and thereby support future climate change adaptation and mitigationpolicies. Some of the objectives that also have large synergies with theeffects in the CropM theme of MACSUR are a) to reduce uncertainty surroundingregional climate change and its impacts for the period 2020-2050 by improvingmodel formulation and process understanding; b) identify key changes andtipping points in the regional hydrological system, agriculture, freshwater andestuarine ecosystems caused by changes in seasonality, dynamics and extremeevents of precipitation, droughts, heat waves and sea level rise; c) quantifyconfidence and uncertainties in predictions of future regional climate and itsimpacts, by improving the statistical methodology and substance and byintegrating interdisciplinary risk analyses; d) interpret these results inrelation to risk management approaches for climate change adaptation andmitigation. Studies in CRES of particular interest to MACSUR include a)Estimation on generic crop model uncertainties in projection of climate changeimpacts on wheat year, b) Assessment of uncertainties in projected effects onwater balance, crop productivity and nitrate leaching of changes in land use,climate and assessment models.
|
|
