toggle visibility Search & Display Options

Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print
  Records Links
Author Webber, H.; Gaiser, T.; Oomen, R.; Teixeira, E.; Zhao, G.; Wallach, D.; Zimmermann, A.; Ewert, F. openurl 
  Title Uncertainty in future irrigation water demand and risk of crop failure for maize in Europe Type Journal Article
  Year 2016 Publication Environmental Research Letters Abbreviated Journal Environ. Res. Lett.  
  Volume Issue Pages  
  Keywords (up) crop model; impact assessment; crop water use; evapotranspiration; irrigation; drought; uncertainty  
  Abstract While crop models are widely used to assess the change in crop productivity with climate change, their skill in assessing irrigation water demand or the risk of crop failure in large area impact assessments is relatively unknown. The objective of this study is to investigate which aspects of modeling crop water use (reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0), soil water extraction, soil evaporation, soil water balance and root growth) contributes most to the variability in estimates of maize crop water use and the risk of crop failure, and demonstrate the resulting uncertainty in a climate change impact study for Europe. The SIMPLACE crop modeling framework was used to couple the LINTUL5 crop model in factorial combinations of 2-3 different approaches for simulating the 5 aspects of crop water use, resulting in 51 modeling approaches. Using experiments in France and New Zeland, analysis of total sensitivity revealed that ET0 explained the most variability in both irrigated maize water use and rainfed grain yield levels, with soil evaporation also imporatant in the French experiment. In the European impact study, net irrigation requirement differed by 36% between the Penman and Hargreaves ET0 methods in the baseline period. Average EU grain yields were similar between models, but differences approached 1-2 tonnes in parts of France and Southern Europe. EU wide esimates of crop failure in the historical period ranged between 5.4 years for Priestley-Taylor to every 7.9 years for the Penman ET0 methods. While the uncertainty in absolute values between models was significant, estimates of relative changes were similar between models, confirming the utility of crop models in assessing climate change impacts. If ET0 estimates in crop models can be improved, through the use of appropriate methods, uncertainty in irrigation water demand as well as in yield estimates under drought can be reduced.  
  Address 2016-09-13  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language Language Summary Language Newsletter July Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN ISBN Medium Article  
  Area CropM Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM; wos; ft=macsur; Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4778  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
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. url  doi
openurl 
  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 (up) 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. url  doi
openurl 
  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 (up) 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 Bindi, M.; Palosuo, T.; Trnka, M.; Semenov, M.A. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Modelling climate change impacts on crop production for food security INTRODUCTION Type Journal Article
  Year 2015 Publication Climate Research Abbreviated Journal Clim. Res.  
  Volume 65 Issue Pages 3-5  
  Keywords (up) Crop production; Climate change impact and adaptation assessments; Upscaling; Model ensembles  
  Abstract Process-based crop models that synthesise the latest scientific understanding of biophysical processes are currently the primary scientific tools available to assess potential impacts of climate change on crop production. Important obstacles are still present, however, and must be overcome for improving crop modelling application in integrated assessments of risk, of sustainability and of crop-production resilience in the face of climate change (e.g. uncertainty analysis, model integration, etc.). The research networks MACSUR and AGMIP organised the CropM International Symposium and Workshop in Oslo, on 10-12 February 2014, and present this CR Special, discussing the state-of-the-art-as well as future perspectives-of crop modelling applications in climate change risk assessment, including the challenges of integrated assessments for the agricultural sector.  
  Address 2016-10-31  
  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 0936-577x ISBN Medium Editorial Material  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM, ftnotmacsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4785  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Ghaley, B.B.; Porter, J.R.; Sandhu, H.S. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Soil-based ecosystem services: a synthesis of nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration assessment methods Type Journal Article
  Year 2014 Publication International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management Abbreviated Journal International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management  
  Volume 10 Issue 3 Pages 177-186  
  Keywords (up) ecosystem functions; litter decomposition; mineralisation; assessment methodologies; stoichiometry  
  Abstract Among the soil-based ecosystem services (ES), nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration have direct influence on the biogeochemical cycles and greenhouse gas emissions affecting provision of other ES that support human existence. We reviewed methods to assess the two key ES by identifying their strengths and weaknesses and have made suggestions for using appropriate methods for better understanding of the ecosystem functions for the provision of ES. Relevant papers for the review were chosen on the basis of (i) diversity of studies on the two key ES in different ecosystems, (ii) methodologies applied and (iii) detailed descriptions of the trial locations in terms of vegetation, soil type, location and climatic information. We concluded that (i) elemental stoichiometrical ratios could be a potential approach to assess the health of ecosystems in terms of provision of the two ES discussed, (ii) stoichiometric imbalances need to be avoided between the supply and the demand of the nutrients to maintain the ES provision in terrestrial ecosystems and (iii) stoichiometric ratios can act as a management tool at a field, farm and at landscape level, to complement other compositional biodiversity and functional diversity approaches to ensure sustainable provision of ES.  
  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 2151-3732 2151-3740 ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM, ftnotmacsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4522  
Permanent link to this record
Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print

Save Citations:
Export Records: