|
|
Abadie, L. M., Galarraga, I., Milford, A. B., & Gustavsen, G. W. (2015). Achieving Emission Reduction Targets by Changing Eating Habits in Norway.
|
|
|
|
Kirchner, M., Schmid, E., Mitter, H., & Schönhart, M. (2015). Modeling the Impacts of Climate Change and Market Integration on Agricultural Production and Land Use Management in Austria.
|
|
|
|
Moriondo, M., Ferrise, R., Trombi, G., Brilli, L., Dibari, C., & Bindi, M. (2015). Modelling olive trees and grapevines in a changing climate. Env. Model. Softw., 72, 387–401.
Abstract: The models developed for simulating olive tree and grapevine yields were reviewed by focussing on the major limitations of these models for their application in a changing climate. Empirical models, which exploit the statistical relationship between climate and yield, and process based models, where crop behaviour is defined by a range of relationships describing the main plant processes, were considered. The results highlighted that the application of empirical models to future climatic conditions (i.e. future climate scenarios) is unreliable since important statistical approaches and predictors are still lacking. While process-based models have the potential for application in climate-change impact assessments, our analysis demonstrated how the simulation of many processes affected by warmer and CO2-enriched conditions may give rise to important biases. Conversely, some crop model improvements could be applied at this stage since specific sub-models accounting for the effect of elevated temperatures and CO2 concentration were already developed. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Ewert, F., Rötter, R. P., Bindi, M., Webber, H., Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K. C., et al. (2015). Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change. Env. Model. Softw., 72, 287–303.
Abstract: The complexity of risks posed by climate change and possible adaptations for crop production has called for integrated assessment and modelling (IAM) approaches linking biophysical and economic models. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the present state of crop modelling to assess climate change risks to food production and to which extent crop models comply with IAM demands. Considerable progress has been made in modelling effects of climate variables, where crop models best satisfy IAM demands. Demands are partly satisfied for simulating commonly required assessment variables. However, progress on the number of simulated crops, uncertainty propagation related to model parameters and structure, adaptations and scaling are less advanced and lagging behind IAM demands. The limitations are considered substantial and apply to a different extent to all crop models. Overcoming these limitations will require joint efforts, and consideration of novel modelling approaches.
|
|
