| Home | << 1 2 >> |
|
Lizaso, J. I., Ruiz-Ramos, M., Rodriguez, L., Gabaldon-Leal, C., Oliveira, J. A., Lorite, I. J., et al. (2017). Modeling the response of maize phenology, kernel set, and yield components to heat stress and heat shock with CSM-IXIM. Field Crops Research, 214, 239–252.
Abstract: The available evidence suggests that the current increasing trend in global surface temperatures will continue during this century, which will be accompanied by a greater frequency of extreme events. The IPCC has projected that higher temperatures may outscore the known optimal and maximum temperatures for maize. The purpose of this study was to improve the ability of the maize model CSM-IXIM to simulate crop development, growth, and yield under hot conditions, especially with regards to the impact of above-optimal temperatures around anthesis. Field and greenhouse experiments that were performed over three years (2014-2016) using the same short-season hybrid, PR37N01 (FAO 300), provided the data for this work. Maize was sown at a target population density of 5 plants M-2 on two sowing dates in 2014 and 2015 and on one in 2016 at three locations in Spain (northern, central, and southern Spain) with a well-defined thermal gradient. The same hybrid was also sown in two greenhouse chambers with daytime target temperatures of approximately 25 and above 35 degrees C. During the nighttime, the temperature in both chambers was allowed to equilibrate with the outside temperature. The greenhouse treatments consisted of moving 18 plants at selected phenological stages (V4, V9, anthesis, lag phase, early grain filling) from the cool chamber to the hot chamber over a week and then returning the plants back to the cool chamber. An additional control treatment remained in the cool chamber all season, and in 2015 and 2016, one treatment remained permanently in the hot chamber. Two maize models in the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) V4.6 were compared, namely CERES and IXIM. The HUM version included additional components that were previously developed to improve the crop N simulation and to incorporate the anthesis-silking interval (ASI). A new thermal time calculation, a heat stress index, the impact of pollen-sterilizing temperatures, and the explicit simulation of male and female flowering as affected by the daily heat conditions were added to IXIM. The phenology simulation in field experiments by IXIM improved substantially. The RMSE for silking and maturity in CERES were 7.9 and 13.7 days, decreasing in DCIM to 2.8 and 7.3 days, respectively. Similarly, the estimated kernel numbers, kernel weight, grain yield and final biomass were always closer to the measurements in HUM than in CERES. The worst simulations were for kernel weight, and for that reason, the differences in grain yield between the models were small (the RMSE in CERES was 1219 kg ha(-1) vs. 1082 kg ha(-1) in IXIM). The greenhouse results also supported the improved estimations of crop development by IXIM (RMSE of 2.6 days) relative to CERES (7.4 days). The impact of the heat treatments on grain yield was consistently overestimated by CERES, while HUM captured the general trend. The new HUM model improved the CERES simulations when elevated temperatures were included in the evaluation data. Additional model testing with measurements from a wider latitudinal range and relevant heat conditions are required.
|
|
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.
|