Bellocchi, G., B., Brilli, L., Ferrise, R., Dibari, C., & Bindi, M. (2017). Model comparison and improvement: Links established with other consortia (Vol. 10).
Abstract: XC1 has established links to other research activities and consortia on model comparison and improvement. They include the global initiatives AgMIP (http://www.agmip.org ) and GRA (http://www.globalresearchalliance.org), and the EU-FP7 project MODEXTREME (http://modextreme.org ). These links have allowed sharing and communication of recent results and methods, and have created opportunities for future research calls.
|
|
Ferrise, R., Bindi, M., Acutis, M., & Bellocchi, G. (2016). Fuzzy-logic based multi-site crop model evaluation in Europe.. Berlin (Germany).
|
|
Lana, M., Kersebaum, K. C., Kollas, C., Yin, X., Nendel, C., Manevski, K., et al. (2016). Effect of different levels of calibration in rotation schemes simulated in five European sites in a multi-model approach.. Berlin (Germany).
|
Bindi, M., Palosuo, T., Trnka, M., & Semenov, M. A. (2015). Modelling climate change impacts on crop production for food security INTRODUCTION. Clim. Res., 65, 3–5.
Abstract: Process-based crop models that synthesise the latest scientific understanding of biophysical processes are currently the primary scientific tools available to assess potential impacts of climate change on crop production. Important obstacles are still present, however, and must be overcome for improving crop modelling application in integrated assessments of risk, of sustainability and of crop-production resilience in the face of climate change (e.g. uncertainty analysis, model integration, etc.). The research networks MACSUR and AGMIP organised the CropM International Symposium and Workshop in Oslo, on 10-12 February 2014, and present this CR Special, discussing the state-of-the-art-as well as future perspectives-of crop modelling applications in climate change risk assessment, including the challenges of integrated assessments for the agricultural sector.
|
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.
|
