|
|
Eitzinger, J., Thaler, S., Schmid, E., Strauss, F., Ferrise, R., Moriondo, M., et al. (2013). Sensitivities of crop models to extreme weather conditions during flowering period demonstrated for maize and winter wheat in Austria. J. Agric. Sci., 151(6), 813–835.
Abstract: The objective of the present study was to compare the performance of seven different, widely applied crop models in predicting heat and drought stress effects. The study was part of a recent suite of model inter-comparisons initiated at European level and constitutes a component that has been lacking in the analysis of sources of uncertainties in crop models used to study the impacts of climate change. There was a specific focus on the sensitivity of models for winter wheat and maize to extreme weather conditions (heat and drought) during the short but critical period of 2 weeks after the start of flowering. Two locations in Austria, representing different agro-climatic zones and soil conditions, were included in the simulations over 2 years, 2003 and 2004, exhibiting contrasting weather conditions. In addition, soil management was modified at both sites by following either ploughing or minimum tillage. Since no comprehensive field experimental data sets were available, a relative comparison of simulated grain yields and soil moisture contents under defined weather scenarios with modified temperatures and precipitation was performed for a 2-week period after flowering. The results may help to reduce the uncertainty of simulated crop yields to extreme weather conditions through better understanding of the models’ behaviour. Although the crop models considered (DSSAT, EPIC, WOFOST, AQUACROP, FASSET, HERMES and CROPSYST) mostly showed similar trends in simulated grain yields for the different weather scenarios, it was obvious that heat and drought stress caused by changes in temperature and/or precipitation for a short period of 2 weeks resulted in different grain yields simulated by different models. The present study also revealed that the models responded differently to changes in soil tillage practices, which affected soil water storage capacity.
|
|
|
|
Jing, Q., Bélanger, G., Baron, V., Bonesmo, H., & Virkajärvi, P. (2013). Simulating the Nutritive Value of Timothy Summer Regrowth. Agronomy Journal, 105(3), 563.
Abstract: The process-based grass model, CATIMO, simulates the spring growth and nutritive value of timothy (Phleum pratense L.), a forage species widely grown in Scandinavia and Canada, but the nutritive value of the summer regrowth has never been simulated. Our objective was to improve CATIMO for simulating the N concentration, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), in vitro digestibility of NDF (dNDF), and in vitro true digestibility of dry matter (IVTD) of summer regrowth. Daily changes in summer regrowth nutritive value were simulated by modifying key crop parameters that differed from spring growth. More specifically, the partitioning fraction to leaf blades was increased to increase the leaf-to-weight ratio, and daily changes in NDF and dNDF of leaf blades and stems were reduced. The modified CATIMO model was evaluated with data from four independent experiments in eastern and western Canada and Finland. The model performed better for eastern Canada than for the other locations, but the nutritive value attributes of the summer regrowth across locations (range of normalized RMSE = 8-25%, slope < 0.17, R-2 < 0.10) were not simulated as well as those of the spring growth (range of normalized RMSE = 4-16%, 0.85 < slope < 1.07, R-2 > 0.61). These modeling results highlight knowledge gaps in timothy summer regrowth and prospective research directions: improved knowledge of factors controlling the nutritive value of the timothy summer regrowth and experimental measurements of leaf-to-weight ratio and of the nutritive value of leaves and stems.
|
|
|
|
Jayet, P., & Petsakos, A. (2013). Evaluating the efficiency of a uniform N-input tax under different policy scenarios at different scales. Environmental Modelling & Assessment, 18(1), 57–72.
Abstract: Nitrate pollution from agriculture is an important environmental externality, caused by the excessive use of fertilizers. The internalization of this problem, via a tax on mineral nitrogen, could lead to a second best solution, reducing nitrate emissions. Several authors suggest that a reduction in agricultural support could produce similar results. In this paper, we examine the effects of different levels of a uniformly implemented nitrogen tax in France under two policy scenarios, corresponding to post Agenda 2000 and 2003 Luxembourg reforms of European Union ’ s Common Agricultural Policy, in order to reveal the synergies and conflicts between the tax and the policy scenarios in terms of nitrate emissions abatement. The analysis is performed at different geographical scales, from the national to the regional and is based on a bioeconomic approach that involves the coupling of the economic model AROPAj with the crop model STICS. Results show that the efficiency of the N-tax varies according to the geographical scale of the analysis and the type of farming. Furthermore, we prove that a uniform implementation may lead to perverse effects that should always be taken into account when introducing second-best instruments.
|
|
|
|
Sanz-Cobena, A., Sánchez-Martín, L., García-Torres, L., & Vallejo, A. (2012). Gaseous emissions of N2O and NO and NO3 − leaching from urea applied with urease and nitrification inhibitors to a maize (Zea mays) crop. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 149, 64–73.
Abstract: Urea has become the predominant source of synthetic nitrogen (N) fertilizer used throughout the world. Among the various available mitigation tools, urease inhibitors like NBPT have the most potential to improve efficiency of urea by reducing N losses, mainly via ammonia volatilization. However, there is a lack of information on the effect of N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) on other N losses such as gaseous emissions of N2O and NO and NO3− leaching. A two-year field experiment using irrigated maize (Zea mays) crop was carried out under Mediterranean conditions to evaluate the effectiveness of urea coated with NBPT (0.4%, w/w) alone and with both NBPT and nitrification inhibitor dicyandiamide (DCD) (0.4 and 3%, w/w, respectively) to mitigate N2O–N, NO–N and NO3−–N losses. The different treatments of U, U+NBPT and U+NBPT+DCD were applied to the maize crop in 2009 and then in 2010. The 2010 maize crop followed a fallow period, during which the 2009 crop residues were incorporated into the soil. Two different irrigation regimes were followed each year. In 2009, irrigation was controlled for the first 2 weeks following urea fertilization; whereas, the 2010 crop period was characterized by increased irrigation in the same period. After each treatment application, measurements of the changes in soil mineral N, gaseous emissions of N2O and NO, nitrate leaching and biomass production were made. N2O emissions were effectively abated by NBPT and NBPT+DCD and were reduced by 54 and 24%, respectively, in 2009. A reduction in nitrification rate by the inhibitors was also observed during 2009. In 2010 cropping period, NBPT reduced N2O emissions by 4%; while the combination of NBPT and DCD treatment reduced N2O emission by 43%. Yield-scaled N2O emissions were reduced by 50 and 18% by NBPT and the mixture of NBPT+DCD, respectively, in 2009. Applying inhibitors did not have any significant effect on yield-scaled N2O emissions in the 2010 crop period. Total NO losses from urea were 2.25 kg NO–N ha−1 in the 2009 crop period and 5 times lower in the following year; this may provide an indicator of the prevalence of nitrification as the main process in the production of N2O in the 2009 maize crop. Most of the NO3− was lost within the fallow period (i.e. 92, 81 and 75% of the total NO3− leached for U, U+NBPT and U+NBPT+DCD, respectively), so the incorporation of crop residues was not as effective as expected at reducing these N losses. Our study suggests that the effectiveness of NBPT and combination of NBPT+DCD in reducing N losses from applied urea is influenced by management practices, such as irrigation, and climatic conditions.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
