|
|
Höglind, M. (2014). Europeisk landbruk i et klima i endring (MACSUR)..
|
|
|
Dumont, B., Basso, B., Leemans, V., Bodson, B., Destain, J. - P., & Destain, M. - F. (2013). A Site-Specific Grain Yield Response Surface : Computing the Identity Card of a Crop Under Different Nitrogen Management Scenarios..
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Overview paper on comprehensive framework for assessment of error and uncertainty in crop model predictions (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. Several ways of quantifying prediction uncertainty have been explored in the literature, but there have been no studies of how the different approaches are related to one another, and how they are related to some overall measure of prediction uncertainty. Here we show that all the different approaches can be related to two different viewpoints about the model; either the model is treated as a fixed predictor with some average error, or the model can be treated as a random variable with uncertainty in one or more of model structure, model inputs and model parameters. We discuss the differences, and show how mean squared error of prediction can be estimated in both cases. The results can be used to put uncertainty estimates into a more general framework and to relate different uncertainty estimates to one another and to overall prediction uncertainty. This should lead to a better understanding of crop model prediction uncertainty and the underlying causes of that uncertainty. This study was published as (Wallach et al. 2016)
|
|
|
|
Challinor, A. J., Müller, C., Asseng, S., Deva, C., Nicklin, K. J., Wallach, D., et al. (2017). Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation. Agric. Syst., 159, 296–306.
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.
|
|
|
|
Faye, B., Webber, H., Naab, J. B., MacCarthy, D. S., Adam, M., Ewert, F., et al. (2018). Impacts of 1.5 versus 2.0 degrees C on cereal yields in the West African Sudan Savanna. Environ. Res. Lett., 13(3), 034014.
Abstract: To reduce the risks of climate change, governments agreed in the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise to less than 2.0 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, with the ambition to keep warming to 1.5 degrees C. Charting appropriate mitigation responses requires information on the costs of mitigating versus associated damages for the two levels of warming. In this assessment, a critical consideration is the impact on crop yields and yield variability in regions currently challenged by food insecurity. The current study assessed impacts of 1.5 degrees C versus 2.0 degrees C on yields of maize, pearl millet and sorghum in the West African Sudan Savanna using two crop models that were calibrated with common varieties from experiments in the region with management reflecting a range of typical sowing windows. As sustainable intensification is promoted in the region for improving food security, simulations were conducted for both current fertilizer use and for an intensification case (fertility not limiting). With current fertilizer use, results indicated 2% units higher losses for maize and sorghum with 2.0 degrees C compared to 1.5 degrees C warming, with no change in millet yields for either scenario. In the intensification case, yield losses due to climate change were larger than with current fertilizer levels. However, despite the larger losses, yields were always two to three times higher with intensification, irrespective of the warming scenario. Though yield variability increased with intensification, there was no interaction with warming scenario. Risk and market analysis are needed to extend these results to understand implications for food security.
|
|
