|
|
Wallach, D., Mearns, L. O., Ruane, A. C., Rötter, R. P., & Asseng, S. (2016). Lessons from climate modeling on the design and use of ensembles for crop modeling. Clim. Change, 139(3-4), 551–564.
Abstract: Working with ensembles of crop models is a recent but important development in crop modeling which promises to lead to better uncertainty estimates for model projections and predictions, better predictions using the ensemble mean or median, and closer collaboration within the modeling community. There are numerous open questions about the best way to create and analyze such ensembles. Much can be learned from the field of climate modeling, given its much longer experience with ensembles. We draw on that experience to identify questions and make propositions that should help make ensemble modeling with crop models more rigorous and informative. The propositions include defining criteria for acceptance of models in a crop MME, exploring criteria for evaluating the degree of relatedness of models in a MME, studying the effect of number of models in the ensemble, development of a statistical model of model sampling, creation of a repository for MME results, studies of possible differential weighting of models in an ensemble, creation of single model ensembles based on sampling from the uncertainty distribution of parameter values or inputs specifically oriented toward uncertainty estimation, the creation of super ensembles that sample more than one source of uncertainty, the analysis of super ensemble results to obtain information on total uncertainty and the separate contributions of different sources of uncertainty and finally further investigation of the use of the multi-model mean or median as a predictor.
|
|
|
|
Fronzek, S., Pirttioja, N., Carter, T. R., Bindi, M., Hoffmann, H., Palosuo, T., et al. (2018). Classifying multi-model wheat yield impact response surfaces showing sensitivity to temperature and precipitation change. Agric. Syst., 159, 209–224.
Abstract: Crop growth simulation models can differ greatly in their treatment of key processes and hence in their response to environmental conditions. Here, we used an ensemble of 26 process-based wheat models applied at sites across a European transect to compare their sensitivity to changes in temperature (-2 to +9 degrees C) and precipitation (-50 to +50%). Model results were analysed by plotting them as impact response surfaces (IRSs), classifying the IRS patterns of individual model simulations, describing these classes and analysing factors that may explain the major differences in model responses. The model ensemble was used to simulate yields of winter and spring wheat at four sites in Finland, Germany and Spain. Results were plotted as IRSs that show changes in yields relative to the baseline with respect to temperature and precipitation. IRSs of 30-year means and selected extreme years were classified using two approaches describing their pattern. The expert diagnostic approach (EDA) combines two aspects of IRS patterns: location of the maximum yield (nine classes) and strength of the yield response with respect to climate (four classes), resulting in a total of 36 combined classes defined using criteria pre-specified by experts. The statistical diagnostic approach (SDA) groups IRSs by comparing their pattern and magnitude, without attempting to interpret these features. It applies a hierarchical clustering method, grouping response patterns using a distance metric that combines the spatial correlation and Euclidian distance between IRS pairs. The two approaches were used to investigate whether different patterns of yield response could be related to different properties of the crop models, specifically their genealogy, calibration and process description. Although no single model property across a large model ensemble was found to explain the integrated yield response to temperature and precipitation perturbations, the application of the EDA and SDA approaches revealed their capability to distinguish: (i) stronger yield responses to precipitation for winter wheat than spring wheat; (ii) differing strengths of response to climate changes for years with anomalous weather conditions compared to period-average conditions; (iii) the influence of site conditions on yield patterns; (iv) similarities in IRS patterns among models with related genealogy; (v) similarities in IRS patterns for models with simpler process descriptions of root growth and water uptake compared to those with more complex descriptions; and (vi) a closer correspondence of IRS patterns in models using partitioning schemes to represent yield formation than in those using a harvest index. Such results can inform future crop modelling studies that seek to exploit the diversity of multi-model ensembles, by distinguishing ensemble members that span a wide range of responses as well as those that display implausible behaviour or strong mutual similarities.
|
|
|
|
Persson, T., Kværnø, S., & Höglind, M. (2015). Impact of soil type extrapolation on timothy grass yield under baseline and future climate conditions in southeastern Norway. Clim. Res., 65, 71–86.
Abstract: Interactions between soil properties and climate affect forage grass productivity. Dynamic models, simulating crop performance as a function of environmental conditions, are valid for a specific location with given soil and weather conditions. Extrapolations of local soil properties to larger regions can help assess the requirement for soil input in regional yield estimations. Using the LINGRA model, we simulated the regional yield level and variability of timothy, a forage grass, in Akershus and Ostfold counties, Norway. Soils were grouped according to physical similarities according to 4 sets of criteria. This resulted in 66, 15, 5 and 1 groups of soils. The properties of the soil with the largest area was extrapolated to the other soils within each group and input to the simulations. All analyses were conducted for 100 yr of generated weather representing the period 1961-1990, and climate projections for the period 2046-2065, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change greenhouse gas emission scenario A1B, and 4 global climate models. The simulated regional seasonal timothy yields were 5-13% lower on average and had higher inter-annual variability for the least detailed soil extrapolation than for the other soil extrapolations, across climates. There were up to 20% spatial intra-regional differences in simulated yield between soil extrapolations. The results indicate that, for conditions similar to these studied here, a few representative profiles are sufficient for simulations of average regional seasonal timothy yield. More spatially detailed yield analyses would benefit from more detailed soil input.
|
|
|
|
Challinor, A. J., Smith, M. S., & Thornton, P. (2013). Use of agro-climate ensembles for quantifying uncertainty and informing adaptation. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 170, 2–7.
Abstract: ► Introduces the special issue on Agricultural prediction using climate model ensembles. ► Discuss remaining scientific challenges. ► Develops distinction between projection- and utility-based ensemble modelling. ► Recommendations made RE modelling and the analysis and reporting of uncertainty. Significant progress has been made in the use of ensemble agricultural and climate modelling, and observed data, to project future productivity and to develop adaptation options. An increasing number of agricultural models are designed specifically for use with climate ensembles, and improved methods to quantify uncertainty in both climate and agriculture have been developed. Whilst crop–climate relationships are still the most common agricultural study of this sort, on-farm management, hydrology, pests, diseases and livestock are now also examined. This paper introduces all of these areas of progress, with more detail being found in the subsequent papers in the special issue. Remaining scientific challenges are discussed, and a distinction is developed between projection- and utility-based approaches to agro-climate ensemble modelling. Recommendations are made regarding the manner in which uncertainty is analysed and reported, and the way in which models and data are used to make inferences regarding the future. A key underlying principle is the use of models as tools from which information is extracted, rather than as competing attempts to represent reality.
|
|
|
|
Mansouri, M., Dumont, B., Leemans, V., & Destain, M. - F. (2014). Bayesian methods for predicting LAI and soil water content. Precision Agric., 15(2), 184–201.
Abstract: LAI of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and soil water content of the topsoil (200 mm) and of the subsoil (500 mm) were considered as state variables of a dynamic soil-crop system. This system was assumed to progress according to a Bayesian probabilistic state space model, in which real values of LAI and soil water content were daily introduced in order to correct the model trajectory and reach better future evolution. The chosen crop model was mini STICS which can reduce the computing and execution times while ensuring the robustness of data processing and estimation. To predict simultaneously state variables and model parameters in this non-linear environment, three techniques were used: extended Kalman filtering (EKF), particle filtering (PF), and variational filtering (VF). The significantly improved performance of the VF method when compared to EKF and PF is demonstrated. The variational filter has a low computational complexity and the convergence speed of states and parameters estimation can be adjusted independently. Detailed case studies demonstrated that the root mean square error of the three estimated states (LAI and soil water content of two soil layers) was smaller and that the convergence of all considered parameters was ensured when using VF. Assimilating measurements in a crop model allows accurate prediction of LAI and soil water content at a local scale. As these biophysical properties are key parameters in the crop-plant system characterization, the system has the potential to be used in precision farming to aid farmers and decision makers in developing strategies for site-specific management of inputs, such as fertilizers and water irrigation.
|
|
