|
|
Angulo, C., Rötter, R., Trnka, M., Pirttioja, N., Gaiser, T., Hlavinka, P., et al. (2013). Characteristic ‘fingerprints’ of crop model responses to weather input data at different spatial resolutions. European Journal of Agronomy, 49, 104–114.
Abstract: Crop growth simulation models are increasingly used for regionally assessing the effects of climate change and variability on crop yields. These models require spatially and temporally detailed, location-specific, environmental (weather and soil) and management data as inputs, which are often difficult to obtain consistently for larger regions. Aggregating the resolution of input data for crop model applications may increase the uncertainty of simulations to an extent that is not well understood. The present study aims to systematically analyse the effect of changes in the spatial resolution of weather input data on yields simulated by four crop models (LINTUL-SLIM, DSSAT-CSM, EPIC and WOFOST) which were utilized to test possible interactions between weather input data resolution and specific modelling approaches representing different degrees of complexity. The models were applied to simulate grain yield of spring barley in Finland for 12 years between 1994 and 2005 considering five spatial resolutions of daily weather data: weather station (point) and grid-based interpolated data at resolutions of 10 km x 10 km; 20 km x 20 km; 50 km x 50 km and 100 km x 100 km. Our results show that the differences between models were larger than the effect of the chosen spatial resolution of weather data for the considered years and region. When displaying model results graphically, each model exhibits a characteristic ‘fingerprint’ of simulated yield frequency distributions. These characteristic distributions in response to the inter-annual weather variability were independent of the spatial resolution of weather input data. Using one model (LINTUL-SLIM), we analysed how the aggregation strategy, i.e. aggregating model input versus model output data, influences the simulated yield frequency distribution. Results show that aggregating weather data has a smaller effect on the yield distribution than aggregating simulated yields which causes a deformation of the model fingerprint. We conclude that changes in the spatial resolution of weather input data introduce less uncertainty to the simulations than the use of different crop models but that more evaluation is required for other regions with a higher spatial heterogeneity in weather conditions, and for other input data related to soil and crop management to substantiate our findings. Our results provide further evidence to support other studies stressing the importance of using not just one, but different crop models in climate assessment studies. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Lorite, I. J., García-Vila, M., Santos, C., Ruiz-Ramos, M., & Fereres, E. (2013). AquaData and AquaGIS: Two computer utilities for temporal and spatial simulations of water-limited yield with AquaCrop. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 96, 227–237.
Abstract: The crop simulation model AquaCrop, recently developed by FAO can be used for a wide range of purposes. However, in its present form, its use over large areas or for applications that require a large number of simulations runs (e.g., long-term analysis), is not practical without developing software to facilitate such applications. Two tools for managing the inputs and outputs of AquaCrop, named AquaData and AquaGIS, have been developed for this purpose and are presented here. Both software utilities have been programmed in Delphi v. 5 and in addition, AquaGIS requires the Geographic Information System (GIS) programming tool MapObjects. These utilities allow the efficient management of input and output files, along with a GIS module to develop spatial analysis and effect spatial visualization of the results, facilitating knowledge dissemination. A sample of application of the utilities is given here, as an AquaCrop simulation analysis of impact of climate change on wheat yield in Southern Spain, which requires extensive input data preparation and output processing. The use of AquaCrop without the two utilities would have required approximately 1000 h of work, while the utilization of AquaData and AquaGIS reduced that time by more than 99%. Furthermore, the use of GIS, made it possible to perform a spatial analysis of the results, thus providing a new option to extend the use of the AquaCrop model to scales requiring spatial and temporal analyses. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Leclère, D., Jayet, P. - A., & de Noblet-Ducoudré, N. (2013). Farm-level Autonomous Adaptation of European Agricultural Supply to Climate Change. Ecol. Econ., 87, 1–14.
Abstract: The impact of climate change on European agriculture is subject to a significant uncertainty, which reflects the intertwined nature of agriculture. This issue involves a large number of processes, ranging from field to global scales, which have not been fully integrated yet. In this study, we intend to help bridging this gap by quantifying the effect of farm-scale autonomous adaptations in response to changes in climate. To do so, we use a modelling framework coupling the STICS generic crop model to the AROPAj microeconomic model of European agricultural supply. This study provides a first estimate of the role of such adaptations, consistent at the European scale while detailed across European regions. Farm-scale autonomous adaptations significantly alter the impact of climate change over Europe, by widely alleviating negative impacts on crop yields and gross margins. They significantly increase European production levels. However, they also have an important and heterogeneous impact on irrigation water withdrawals, which exacerbate the differences in ambient atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations among climate change scenarios. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Kyle, P., Müller, C., Calvin, K., & Thomson, A. (2014). Meeting the radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways in a world with agricultural climate impacts. Earth’s Future, 2, 83–98.
Abstract: This study assesses how climate impacts on agriculture may change the evolution of the agricultural and energy systems in meeting the end-of-century radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways (RCPs). We build on the recently completed Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP) exercise that has produced global gridded estimates of future crop yields for major agricultural crops using climate model projections of the RCPs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). For this study we use the bias-corrected outputs of the HadGEM2-ES climate model as inputs to the LPJmL crop growth model, and the outputs of LPJmL to modify inputs to the GCAM integrated assessment model. Our results indicate that agricultural climate impacts generally lead to an increase in global cropland, as compared with corresponding emissions scenarios that do not consider climate impacts on agricultural productivity. This is driven mostly by negative impacts on wheat, rice, other grains, and oil crops. Still, including agricultural climate impacts does not significantly increase the costs or change the technological strategies of global, whole-system emissions mitigation. In fact, to meet the most aggressive climate change mitigation target (2.6W/m(2) in 2100), the net mitigation costs are slightly lower when agricultural climate impacts are considered. Key contributing factors to these results are (a) low levels of climate change in the low-forcing scenarios, (b) adaptation to climate impacts simulated in GCAM through inter-regional shifting in the production of agricultural goods, and (c) positive average climate impacts on bioenergy crop yields.
|
|
