|
|
Semenov, M. A., & Stratonovitch, P. (2015). Adapting wheat ideotypes for climate change: accounting for uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections. Clim. Res., 65, 123–139.
Abstract: This study describes integration of climate change projections from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) multi-model ensemble with the LARS-WG weather generator, which delivers an attractive option for the downscaling of large-scale climate projections from global climate models (GCMs) to local-scale climate scenarios for impact assessments. A subset of 18 GCMs from the CMIP5 ensemble and 2 Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, were integrated with LARS-WG. For computationally demanding impact assessments, where it is not practical to explore all possible combinations of GCM x RCP, a climate sensitivity index could be used to select a subset of GCMs which preserves the range of uncertainty found in CMIP5. This would allow us to quantify uncertainty in predictions of impacts resulting fromthe CMIP5 ensemble by conducting fewer simulation experiments. In a case study, we describe the use of the Sirius wheat simulation model to design in silico wheat ideotypes that are optimised for future climates in Europe, sampling uncertainty in GCMs, emission scenarios, time periods and European locations with contrasting climates. Two contrasting GCMs were selected for the analysis, ‘hot’ HadGEM2-ES and ‘cool’ GISS-E2-R-CC. Despite large uncertainty in future climate projections, we were able to identify target traits for wheat improvement which may assist breeding for high-yielding wheat cultivars with increased yield stability.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Caubel, J., García de Cortázar-Atauri, I., Launay, M., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Huard, F., Bertuzzi, P., et al. (2015). Broadening the scope for ecoclimatic indicators to assess crop climate suitability according to ecophysiological, technical and quality criteria. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 207, 94–106.
Abstract: The cultivation of crops in a given area is highly dependent of climatic conditions. Assessment of how the climate is favorable is highly useful for planners, land managers, farmers and plant breeders who can propose and apply adaptation strategies to improve agricultural potentialities. The aim of this study was to develop an assessment method for crop-climate suitability that was generic enough to be applied to a wide range of issues and crops. The method proposed is based on agroclimatic indicators that are calculated over phenological periods (ecoclimatic indicators). These indicators are highly relevant since they provide accurate information about the effect of climate on particular plant processes and cultural practices that take place during specific phenological periods. Three case studies were performed in order to illustrate the potentialities of the method. They concern annual (maize and wheat) and perennial (grape) crops and focus on the study of climate suitability in terms of the following criteria: ecophysiological, days available to carry out cultural practices, and harvest quality. The analysis of the results revealed both the advantages and limitations of the method. The method is general and flexible enough to be applied to a wide range of issues even if an expert assessment is initially needed to build the analysis framework. The limited number of input data makes it possible to use it to explore future possibilities for agriculture in many areas. The access to intermediate information through elementary ecoclimatic indicators allows users to propose targeted adaptations when climate suitability is not satisfactory.
|
|
|
|
Ewert, F., Rötter, R. P., Bindi, M., Webber, H., Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K. C., et al. (2015). Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change. Env. Model. Softw., 72, 287–303.
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.
|
|
|
|
Gabaldón-Leal, C., Webber, H., Otegui, M. E., Slafer, G. A., Ordonez, R. A., Gaiser, T., et al. (2016). Modelling the impact of heat stress on maize yield formation. Field Crops Research, 198, 226–237.
Abstract: The frequency and intensity of extreme high temperature events are expected to increase with climate change. Higher temperatures near anthesis have a large negative effect on maize (Zea mays, L.) grain yield. While crop growth models are commonly used to assess climate change impacts on maize and other crops, it is only recently that they have accounted for such heat stress effects, despite limited field data availability for model evaluation. There is also increasing awareness but limited testing of the importance of canopy temperature as compared to air temperature for heat stress impact simulations. In this study, four independent irrigated field trials with controlled heating imposed using polyethylene shelters were used to develop and evaluate a heat stress response function in the crop modeling framework SIMPLACE, in which the Lintul5 crop model was combined with a canopy temperature model. A dataset from Argentina with the temperate hybrid Nidera AX 842 MG (RM 119) was used to develop a yield reduction function based on accumulated hourly stress thermal time above a critical temperature of 34 degrees C. A second dataset from Spain with a FAO 700 cultivar was used to evaluate the model with daily weather inputs in two sets of simulations. The first was used to calibrate SIMPLACE for conditions with no heat stress, and the second was used to evaluate SIMPLACE under conditions of heat stress using the reduction factor obtained with the Argentine dataset. Both sets of simulations were conducted twice; with the heat stress function alternatively driven with air and simulated canopy temperature. Grain yield simulated under heat stress conditions improved when canopy temperature was used instead of air temperature (RMSE equal to 175 and 309 g m(-2), respectively). For the irrigated and high radiative conditions, raising the critical threshold temperature for heat stress to 39 degrees C improved yield simulation using air temperature (RMSE: 221 gm(-2)) without the need to simulate canopy temperature (RMSE: 175 gm(-2)). However, this approach of adjusting thresholds is only likely to work in environments where climatic variables and the level of soil water deficit are constant, such as irrigated conditions and are not appropriate for rainfed production conditions. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
