|
|
Jing, Q., Bélanger, G., Baron, V., Bonesmo, H., Virkajärvi, P., & Young, D. (2012). Regrowth simulation of the perennial grass timothy. Ecol. Model., 232, 64–77.
Abstract: Several process-based models for simulating the growth of perennial grasses have been developed but few include the simulation of regrowth. The model CATIMO simulates the primary growth of timothy (Phleum pratense L), an important perennial forage grass species in northern regions of Europe and North America. Our objective was to further develop the model CATIMO to simulate timothy regrowth using the concept of reserve-dependent growth. The performance of this modified CATIMO model in simulating leaf area index (LAI), biomass dry matter (DM) yield, and N uptake of regrowth was assessed with data from four independent field experiments in Norway, Finland, and western and eastern Canada using an approach that combines graphical comparison and statistical analysis. Biomass DM yield and N uptake of regrowth were predicted at the same accuracy as primary growth with linear regression coefficients of determination between measured and simulated values greater than 0.79, model simulation efficiencies greater than 0.78, and normalized root mean square errors (14-30% for biomass and 24-34% for N uptake) comparable with the coefficients of variation of measured data (1-21% for biomass and 1-25% for N uptake). The model satisfactorily simulated the regrowth LAI but only up to a value of about 4.0. The modified CATIMO model with its capacity to simulate regrowth provides a framework to simulate perennial grasses with multiple harvests, and to explore management options for sustainable grass production under different environmental conditions. Crown Copyright (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Sánchez, B., Rasmussen, A., & Porter, J. R. (2014). Temperatures and the growth and development of maize and rice: a review. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20(2), 408–417.
Abstract: Because of global land surface warming, extreme temperature events are expected to occur more often and more intensely, affecting the growth and development of the major cereal crops in several ways, thus affecting the production component of food security. In this study, we have identified rice and maize crop responses to temperature in different, but consistent, phenological phases and development stages. A literature review and data compilation of around 140 scientific articles have determined the key temperature thresholds and response to extreme temperature effects for rice and maize, complementing an earlier study on wheat. Lethal temperatures and cardinal temperatures, together with error estimates, have been identified for phenological phases and development stages. Following the methodology of previous work, we have collected and statistically analysed temperature thresholds of the three crops for the key physiological processes such as leaf initiation, shoot growth and root growth and for the most susceptible phenological phases such as sowing to emergence, anthesis and grain filling. Our summary shows that cardinal temperatures are conservative between studies and are seemingly well defined in all three crops. Anthesis and ripening are the most sensitive temperature stages in rice as well as in wheat and maize. We call for further experimental studies of the effects of transgressing threshold temperatures so such responses can be included into crop impact and adaptation models.
|
|
|
|
Siebert, S., & Ewert, F. (2014). Future crop production threatened by extreme heat. Environ. Res. Lett., 9(4).
Abstract: Heat is considered to be a major stress limiting crop growth and yields. While important findings on the impact of heat on crop yield have been made based on experiments in controlled environments, little is known about the effects under field conditions at larger scales. The study of Deryng et al (2014 Global crop yield response to extreme heat stress under multiple climate change futures Environ. Res. Lett. 9 034011), analysing the impact of heat stress on maize, spring wheat and soya bean under climate change, represents an important contribution to this emerging research field. Uncertainties in the occurrence of heat stress under field conditions, plant responses to heat and appropriate adaptation measures still need further investigation.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
