| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Challinor, A.J.; Müller, C.; Asseng, S.; Deva, C.; Nicklin, K.J.; Wallach, D.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Whitfield, S.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Koehler, A.-K. |
|
| |
Title |
Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Syst. |
|
| |
Volume |
159 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
296-306 |
|
| |
Keywords  |
Crop model; Risk assessment; Climate change impacts; Adaptation; Climate models; Uncertainty |
|
| |
Abstract |
Highlights
• 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments
Abstract
Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper. |
|
| |
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 |
CropM |
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5175 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Angulo, C.; Gaiser, T.; Rötter, R.P.; Børgesen, C.D.; Hlavinka, P.; Trnka, M.; Ewert, F. |
|
| |
Title |
‘Fingerprints’ of four crop models as affected by soil input data aggregation |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2014 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
European Journal of Agronomy |
|
| |
Volume |
61 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
35-48 |
|
| |
Keywords |
crop model; soil data; spatial resolution; yield distribution; aggregation; us great-plains; climate-change; integrated assessment; simulating wheat; yields; scale; productivity; uncertainty; variability; responses |
|
| |
Abstract |
• Systematic analysis of the influence of spatial soil data resolution on simulated regional yields and total growing season evapotranspiration. • The responses of four crop models of different complexity are compared. • Differences between models are larger than the effect of the chosen spatial soil data resolution. • Low influence of soil data resolution due to: high precipitation amount, methods for calculating water retention and method of data aggregation. The spatial variability of soil properties is an important driver of yield variability at both field and regional scale. Thus, when using crop growth simulation models, the choice of spatial resolution of soil input data might be key in order to accurately reproduce observed yield variability. In this study we used four crop models (SIMPLACE<LINTUL-SLIM>, DSSAT-CSM, EPIC and DAISY) differing in the detail of modeling above-ground biomass and yield as well as of modeling soil water dynamics, water uptake and drought effects on plants to simulate winter wheat in two (agro-climatologically and geo-morphologically) contrasting regions of the federal state of North-Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) for the period from 1995 to 2008. Three spatial resolutions of soil input data were taken into consideration, corresponding to the following map scales: 1:50 000, 1:300 000 and 1:1 000 000. The four crop models were run for water-limited production conditions and model results were evaluated in the form of frequency distributions, depicted by bean-plots. In both regions, soil data aggregation had very small influence on the shape and range of frequency distributions of simulated yield and simulated total growing season evapotranspiration for all models. Further analysis revealed that the small influence of spatial resolution of soil input data might be related to: (a) the high precipitation amount in the region which partly masked differences in soil characteristics for water holding capacity, (b) the loss of variability in hydraulic soil properties due to the methods applied to calculate water retention properties of the used soil profiles, and (c) the method of soil data aggregation. No characteristic “fingerprint” between sites, years and resolutions could be found for any of the models. Our results support earlier recommendation to evaluate model results on the basis of frequency distributions since these offer quick and better insight into the distribution of simulation results as compared to summary statistics only. Finally, our results support conclusions from other studies about the usefulness of considering a multi-model approach to quantify the uncertainty in simulated yields introduced by the crop growth simulation approach when exploring the effects of scaling for regional yield impact assessments. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
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 |
1161-0301 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4511 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Zhao, G.; Hoffmann, H.; Yeluripati, J.; Xenia, S.; Nendel, C.; Coucheney, E.; Kuhnert, M.; Tao, F.; Constantin, J.; Raynal, H.; Teixeira, E.; Grosz, B.; Doro, L.; Kiese, R.; Eckersten, H.; Haas, E.; Cammarano, D.; Kassie, B.; Moriondo, M.; Trombi, G.; Bindi, M.; Biernath, C.; Heinlein, F.; Klein, C.; Priesack, E.; Lewan, E.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Rötter, R.; Roggero, P.P.; Wallach, D.; Asseng, S.; Siebert, S.; Gaiser, T.; Ewert, F. |
|
| |
Title |
Evaluating the precision of eight spatial sampling schemes in estimating regional means of simulated yield for two crops |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Environmental Modelling & Software |
Abbreviated Journal |
Env. Model. Softw. |
|
| |
Volume |
80 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
100-112 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Crop model; Stratified random sampling; Simple random sampling; Clustering; Up-scaling; Model comparison; Precision gain; species distribution models; systems simulation; weather data; large-scale; design; soil; optimization; growth; apsim; autocorrelation |
|
| |
Abstract |
We compared the precision of simple random sampling (SimRS) and seven types of stratified random sampling (StrRS) schemes in estimating regional mean of water-limited yields for two crops (winter wheat and silage maize) that were simulated by fourteen crop models. We found that the precision gains of StrRS varied considerably across stratification methods and crop models. Precision gains for compact geographical stratification were positive, stable and consistent across crop models. Stratification with soil water holding capacity had very high precision gains for twelve models, but resulted in negative gains for two models. Increasing the sample size monotonously decreased the sampling errors for all the sampling schemes. We conclude that compact geographical stratification can modestly but consistently improve the precision in estimating regional mean yields. Using the most influential environmental variable for stratification can notably improve the sampling precision, especially when the sensitivity behavior of a crop model is known. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
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 |
1364-8152 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4724 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Wallach, D.; Thorburn, P.; Asseng, S.; Challinor, A.J.; Ewert, F.; Jones, J.W.; Rötter, R.; Ruane, A. |
|
| |
Title |
Estimating model prediction error: Should you treat predictions as fixed or random |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Environmental Modelling & Software |
Abbreviated Journal |
Env. Model. Softw. |
|
| |
Volume |
84 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
529-539 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Crop model; Uncertainty; Prediction error; Parameter uncertainty; Input uncertainty; Model structure uncertainty |
|
| |
Abstract |
Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. We compare two criteria of prediction error; MSEPfixed, which evaluates mean squared error of prediction for a model with fixed structure, parameters and inputs, and MSEPuncertain(X), which evaluates mean squared error averaged over the distributions of model structure, inputs and parameters. Comparison of model outputs with data can be used to estimate the former. The latter has a squared bias term, which can be estimated using hindcasts, and a model variance term, which can be estimated from a simulation experiment. The separate contributions to MSEPuncertain(X) can be estimated using a random effects ANOVA. It is argued that MSEPuncertain(X) is the more informative uncertainty criterion, because it is specific to each prediction situation. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
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 |
1364-8152 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4773 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Angulo, C.; Rötter, R.; Trnka, M.; Pirttioja, N.; Gaiser, T.; Hlavinka, P.; Ewert, F. |
|
| |
Title |
Characteristic ‘fingerprints’ of crop model responses to weather input data at different spatial resolutions |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2013 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
European Journal of Agronomy |
|
| |
Volume |
49 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
104-114 |
|
| |
Keywords |
crop model; weather data resolution; aggregation; yield distribution; climate-change scenarios; areal unit problem; simulation-model; winter-wheat; system model; impacts; europe; yield; productivity; precipitation |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
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 |
1161-0301 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4598 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
