| Home | << 1 2 3 4 >> |
|
Ghaley, B. B., & Porter, J. R. (2014). Ecosystem function and service quantification and valuation in a conventional winter wheat production system with the DAISY model in Denmark. Ecosystem Services, 10, 79–83.
Abstract: With inevitable link between ecosystem function (EF), ecosystem services (ES) and agricultural productivity, there is a need for quantification and valuation of EF and ES in agro-ecosystems. Management practices have significant effects on soil organic matter (SOM), affecting productivity, EF and ES provision. The objective was to quantify two EF: soil water storage and nitrogen mineralization and three ES: food and fodder production and carbon sequestration, in a conventional winter wheat production system at 2.6% SOM compared to 50% lower (1.3%) and 50% higher (3.9%) SOM in Denmark by DAISY model. At 2.6% SOM, the food and fodder production was 649 and 6.86 t ha(-1) year(-1) respectively whereas carbon sequestration and soil water storage was 9.73 t ha(-1) year and 684 mm ha(-1) year(-1) respectively and nitrogen mineralisation was 83.58 kg ha(-1) year(-1), AL 2.6% SOM, the two EF and three ES values were US$ 177 and US$ 2542 ha(-1) year respectively equivalent to US$ 96 and US$1370 million year(-1) respectively in Denmark. The EF and ES quantities and values were positively correlated with SOM content. Hence, the quantification and valuation of EF and ES provides an empirical tool for optimising the Er. and ES provision for agricultural productivity. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved
|
|
Hoffmann, H., Zhao, G., Asseng, S., Bindi, M., Biernath, C., Constantin, J., et al. (2016). Impact of spatial soil and climate input data aggregation on regional yield simulations. PLoS One, 11(4), e0151782.
Abstract: We show the error in water-limited yields simulated by crop models which is associated with spatially aggregated soil and climate input data. Crop simulations at large scales (regional, national, continental) frequently use input data of low resolution. Therefore, climate and soil data are often generated via averaging and sampling by area majority. This may bias simulated yields at large scales, varying largely across models. Thus, we evaluated the error associated with spatially aggregated soil and climate data for 14 crop models. Yields of winter wheat and silage maize were simulated under water-limited production conditions. We calculated this error from crop yields simulated at spatial resolutions from 1 to 100 km for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Most models showed yields biased by <15% when aggregating only soil data. The relative mean absolute error (rMAE) of most models using aggregated soil data was in the range or larger than the inter-annual or inter-model variability in yields. This error increased further when both climate and soil data were aggregated. Distinct error patterns indicate that the rMAE may be estimated from few soil variables. Illustrating the range of these aggregation effects across models, this study is a first step towards an ex-ante assessment of aggregation errors in large-scale simulations.
Keywords: systems simulation; nitrogen dynamics; winter-wheat; crop models; data resolution; scale; water; variability; calibration; weather
|
|
Montesino-San Martín, M., Olesen, J. E., & Porter, J. R. (2015). Can crop-climate models be accurate and precise? A case study for wheat production in Denmark. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 202, 51–60.
Abstract: Crop models, used to make projections of climate change impacts, differ greatly in structural detail. Complexity of model structure has generic effects on uncertainty and error propagation in climate change impact assessments. We applied Bayesian calibration to three distinctly different empirical and mechanistic wheat models to assess how differences in the extent of process understanding in models affects uncertainties in projected impact. Predictive power of the models was tested via both accuracy (bias) and precision (or tightness of grouping) of yield projections for extrapolated weather conditions. Yields predicted by the mechanistic model were generally more accurate than the empirical models for extrapolated conditions. This trend does not hold for all extrapolations; mechanistic and empirical models responded differently due to their sensitivities to distinct weather features. However, higher accuracy comes at the cost of precision of the mechanistic model to embrace all observations within given boundaries. The approaches showed complementarity in sensitivity to weather variables and in accuracy for different extrapolation domains. Their differences in model precision and accuracy make them suitable for generic model ensembles for near-term agricultural impact assessments of climate change.
|