| Home | [11–20] << 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 >> [31–40] |
|
Conradt, T., Gornott, C., & Wechsung, F. (2016). Extending and improving regionalized winter wheat and silage maize yield regression models for Germany: Enhancing the predictive skill by panel definition through cluster analysis. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 216, 68–81.
Abstract: Regional agricultural yield assessments allowing for weather effect quantifications are a valuable basis for deriving scenarios of climate change effects and developing adaptation strategies. Assessing weather effects by statistical methods is a classical approach, but for obtaining robust results many details deserve attention and require individual decisions as is demonstrated in this paper. We evaluated regression models for annual yield changes of winter wheat and silage maize in more than 300 German counties and revised them to increase their predictive power. A major effort of this study was, however, aggregating separately estimated time series models (STSM) into panel data models (PDM) based on cluster analyses. The cluster analyses were based on the per-county estimates of STSM parameters. The original STSM formulations (adopted from a parallel study) contained also the non-meteorological input variables acreage and fertilizer price. The models were revised to use only weather variables as estimation basis. These consisted of time aggregates of radiation, precipitation, temperature, and potential evapotranspiration. Altering the input variables generally increased the predictive power of the models as did their clustering into PDM. For each crop, five alternative clusterings were produced by three different methods, and similarities between their spatial structures seem to confirm the existence of objective clusters about common model parameters. Observed smooth transitions of STSM parameter values in space suggest, however, spatial autocorrelation effects that could also be modeled explicitly. Both clustering and autocorrelation approaches can effectively reduce the noise in parameter estimation through targeted aggregation of input data. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
Zhao, G., Webber, H., Hoffmann, H., Wolf, J., Siebert, S., & Ewert, F. (2015). The implication of irrigation in climate change impact assessment: a European-wide study. Glob. Chang. Biol., 21(11), 4031–4048.
Abstract: This study evaluates the impacts of projected climate change on irrigation requirements and yields of six crops (winter wheat, winter barley, rapeseed, grain maize, potato, and sugar beet) in Europe. Furthermore, the uncertainty deriving from consideration of irrigation, CO2 effects on crop growth and transpiration, and different climate change scenarios in climate change impact assessments is quantified. Net irrigation requirement (NIR) and yields of the six crops were simulated for a baseline (1982-2006) and three SRES scenarios (B1, B2 and A1B, 2040-2064) under rainfed and irrigated conditions, using a process-based crop model, SIMPLACE <LINTUL5, DRUNIR, HEAT>. We found that projected climate change decreased NIR of the three winter crops in northern Europe (up to 81 mm), but increased NIR of all the six crops in the Mediterranean regions (up to 182 mm yr(-1)). Climate change increased yields of the three winter crops and sugar beet in middle and northern regions (up to 36%), but decreased their yields in Mediterranean countries (up to 81%). Consideration of CO2 effects can alter the direction of change in NIR for irrigated crops in the south and of yields for C3 crops in central and northern Europe. Constraining the model to rainfed conditions for spring crops led to a negative bias in simulating climate change impacts on yields (up to 44%), which was proportional to the irrigation ratio of the simulation unit. Impacts on NIR and yields were generally consistent across the three SRES scenarios for the majority of regions in Europe. We conclude that due to the magnitude of irrigation and CO2 effects, they should both be considered in the simulation of climate change impacts on crop production and water availability, particularly for crops and regions with a high proportion of irrigated crop area.
Keywords: CO2 effects; Lintul; Simplace; climate change; crop model; irrigation; water availability; yield change
|
|
Höglind, M., Van Oijen, M., Cameron, D., & Persson, T. (2016). Process-based simulation of growth and overwintering of grassland using the BASGRA model. Ecol. Model., 335, 1–15.
Abstract: Process-based models (PBM) for simulation of weather dependent grass growth can assist farmers and plant breeders in addressing the challenges of climate change by simulating alternative roads of adaptation. They can also provide management decision support under current conditions. A drawback of existing grass models is that they do not take into account the effect of winter stresses, limiting their use for full-year simulations in areas where winter survival is a key factor for yield security. Here, we present a novel full-year PBM for grassland named BASGRA. It was developed by combining the LINGRA grassland model (Van Oijen et al., 2005a) with models for cold hardening and soil physical winter processes. We present the model and show how it was parameterized for timothy (Phleum pratense L.), the most important forage grass in Scandinavia and parts of North America and Asia. Uniquely, BASGRA simulates the processes taking place in the sward during the transition from summer to winter, including growth cessation and gradual cold hardening, and functions for simulating plant injury due to low temperatures, snow and ice affecting regrowth in spring. For the calibration, we used detailed data from five different locations in Norway, covering a wide range of agroclimatic regions, day lengths (latitudes from 59 degrees to 70 degrees N) and soil conditions. The total dataset included 11 variables, notably above-ground dry matter, leaf area index, tiller density, content of C reserves, and frost tolerance. All data were used in the calibration. When BASGRA was run with the maximum a-posteriori (MAP) parameter vector from the single, Bayesian calibration, nearly all measured variables were simulated to an overall normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE) <0.5. For many site x experiment combinations, NRMSE was <0.3. The temporal dynamics were captured well for most variables, as evaluated by comparing simulated time courses versus data for the individual sites. The results may suggest that BASGRA is a reasonably robust model, allowing for simulation of growth and several important underlying processes with acceptable accuracy for a range of agroclimatic conditions. However, the robustness of the model needs to be tested further using independent data from a wide range of growing conditions. Finally we show an example of application of the model, comparing overwintering risks in two climatically different sites, and discuss future model applications. Further development work should include improved simulation of the dynamics of C reserves, and validation of winter tiller dynamics against independent data. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cold hardening; Frost injury; Phleum pratense L.; Process-based; modelling; Winter survival; Yield; low-temperature tolerance; perennial forage crops; dry-matter; production; climate-change; nutritive-value; snow-cover; bayesian; calibration; timothy regrowth; phleum-pratense; lolium-perenne
|
|
Bellocchi, G., Rivington, M., Matthews, K., & Acutis, M. (2015). Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review. Agron. Sust. Developm., 35(2), 589–605.
Abstract: The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.
|
|
von Lampe, M., Willenbockel, D., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Cai, Y., Calvin, K., et al. (2014). Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 3.
Abstract: Recent studies assessing plausible futures for agricultural markets and global food security have had contradictory outcomes. To advance our understanding of the sources of the differences, 10 global economic models that produce long-term scenarios were asked to compare a reference scenario with alternate socioeconomic, climate change, and bioenergy scenarios using a common set of key drivers. Several key conclusions emerge from this exercise: First, for a comparison of scenario results to be meaningful, a careful analysis of the interpretation of the relevant model variables is essential. For instance, the use of real world commodity prices differs widely across models, and comparing the prices without accounting for their different meanings can lead to misleading results. Second, results suggest that, once some key assumptions are harmonized, the variability in general trends across models declines but remains important. For example, given the common assumptions of the reference scenario, models show average annual rates of changes of real global producer prices for agricultural products on average ranging between -0.4% and +0.7% between the 2005 base year and 2050. This compares to an average decline of real agricultural prices of 4% p.a. between the 1960s and the 2000s. Several other common trends are shown, for example, relating to key global growth areas for agricultural production and consumption. Third, differences in basic model parameters such as income and price elasticities, sometimes hidden in the way market behavior is modeled, result in significant differences in the details. Fourth, the analysis shows that agro-economic modelers aiming to inform the agricultural and development policy debate require better data and analysis on both economic behavior and biophysical drivers. More interdisciplinary modeling efforts are required to cross-fertilize analyses at different scales.
|