| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–17] |
|
Sanz-Cobena, A., Lassaletta, L., Gamier, J., Smith, P., Sanz-Cobena, A., Lassaletta, L., et al. (2017). Mitigation and quantification of greenhouse gas emissions in Mediterranean cropping systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 238, 1–4.
|
|
Martre, P., He, J., Le Gouis, J., & Semenov, M. A. (2015). In silico system analysis of physiological traits determining grain yield and protein concentration for wheat as influenced by climate and crop management. J. Experim. Bot., 66(12), 3581–3598.
Abstract: Genetic improvement of grain yield (GY) and grain protein concentration (GPC) is impeded by large genotype×environment×management interactions and by compensatory effects between traits. Here global uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of the process-based wheat model SiriusQuality2 were conducted with the aim of identifying candidate traits to increase GY and GPC. Three contrasted European sites were selected and simulations were performed using long-term weather data and two nitrogen (N) treatments in order to quantify the effect of parameter uncertainty on GY and GPC under variable environments. The overall influence of all 75 plant parameters of SiriusQuality2 was first analysed using the Morris method. Forty-one influential parameters were identified and their individual (first-order) and total effects on the model outputs were investigated using the extended Fourier amplitude sensitivity test. The overall effect of the parameters was dominated by their interactions with other parameters. Under high N supply, a few influential parameters with respect to GY were identified (e.g. radiation use efficiency, potential duration of grain filling, and phyllochron). However, under low N, >10 parameters showed similar effects on GY and GPC. All parameters had opposite effects on GY and GPC, but leaf and stem N storage capacity appeared as good candidate traits to change the intercept of the negative relationship between GY and GPC. This study provides a system analysis of traits determining GY and GPC under variable environments and delivers valuable information to prioritize model development and experimental work.
Keywords: Climate; *Computer Simulation; Crops, Agricultural/*growth & development/physiology; Edible Grain/*growth & development; Models, Biological; Nitrogen/metabolism; Plant Proteins/*metabolism; Plant Transpiration; Probability; *Quantitative Trait, Heritable; Soil/chemistry; Triticum/growth & development/metabolism/*physiology; Water/chemistry; Crop growth model; genetic adaptation; grain protein concentration; grain yield; interannual variability; sensitivity analysis; wheat (Triticum aestivum L.); 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: 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. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
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.
|
|
Doro, L., Jones, C., Williams, J. R., Norfleet, M. L., Izaurralde, R. C., Wang, X., et al. (2017). The Variable Saturation Hydraulic Conductivity Method for Improving Soil Water Content Simulation in EPIC and APEX Models. Vadose Zone Journal, 16(13).
Abstract: Soil water percolation is a key process in the life cycle of water in fields, watersheds, and river basins. The Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) and the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender (APEX) are continuous models developed for evaluating the environmental effects of agricultural management. Traditionally, these models have simulated soil water percolation processes using a tipping-bucket approach, with the rate of flow limited by the saturated hydraulic conductivity. This simple approach often leads to inaccuracy in simulating elevated soil water conditions where soil water content (SWC) levels may remain above field capacity under prolonged wet weather periods or limited drainage. To overcome this deficiency, a new sub-model, the variable saturation hydraulic conductivity (VSHC) method, was developed for simulating soil water percolation processes using a nonlinear equation to estimate the effective hydraulic conductivity as a function of the SWC and soil properties. The VSHC method was evaluated at three sites in the United States and two sites in Europe. In addition, a numerical solution of the Richards equation was used as a benchmark for SWC comparison. Results show that the VSHC method substantially improves the accuracy of the SWC simulation in long-term simulations, particularly during wet periods. At the watershed scale, results on the Riesel Y2 watershed indicate that the VSHC method enhances model performance in the high-flow regime of channel peak flows because of the improved estimation of SWC, which implies that the improved SWC simulation at the field scale is beneficial to hydrologic modeling at the watershed scale.
|