|
|
Ma, S., Lardy, R., Graux, A. - I., Ben Touhami, H., Klumpp, K., Martin, R., et al. (2015). Regional-scale analysis of carbon and water cycles on managed grassland systems. Env. Model. Softw., 72, 356–371.
Abstract: Predicting regional and global carbon (C) and water dynamics on grasslands has become of major interest, as grasslands are one of the most widespread vegetation types worldwide, providing a number of ecosystem services (such as forage production and C storage). The present study is a contribution to a regional-scale analysis of the C and water cycles on managed grasslands. The mechanistic biogeochemical model PaSim (Pasture Simulation model) was evaluated at 12 grassland sites in Europe. A new parameterization was obtained on a common set of eco-physiological parameters, which represented an improvement of previous parameterization schemes (essentially obtained via calibration at specific sites). We found that C and water fluxes estimated with the parameter set are in good agreement with observations. The model with the new parameters estimated that European grassland are a sink of C with 213 g C m(-2) yr(-1), which is close to the observed net ecosystem exchange (NEE) flux of the studied sites (185 g C m(-2) yr(-1) on average). The estimated yearly average gross primary productivity (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (RECO) for all of the study sites are 1220 and 1006 g C m(-2) yr(-1), respectively, in agreement with observed average GPP (1230 g C m(-2) yr(-1)) and RECO (1046 g C m(-2) yr(-1)). For both variables aggregated on a weekly basis, the root mean square error (RMSE) was similar to 5-16 g C week(-1) across the study sites, while the goodness of fit (R-2) was similar to 0.4-0.9. For evapotranspiration (ET), the average value of simulated ET (415 mmyr(-1)) for all sites and years is close to the average value of the observed ET (451 mm yr(-1)) by flux towers (on a weekly basis, RMSE similar to 2-8 mm week(-1); R-2 = 0.3-0.9). However, further model development is needed to better represent soil water dynamics under dry conditions and soil temperature in winter. A quantification of the uncertainties introduced by spatially generalized parameter values in C and water exchange estimates is also necessary. In addition, some uncertainties in the input management data call for the need to improve the quality of the observational system.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Dono, G., Cortignani, R., Dell’Unto, D., Deligios, P., Doro, L., Lacetera, N., et al. (2016). Winners and losers from climate change in agriculture: Insights from a case study in the Mediterranean basin. Agricultural Systems, 147, 65–75.
Abstract: The Mediterranean region has always shown a marked inter-annual variability in seasonal weather, creating uncertainty in decisional processes of cultivation and livestock breeding that should not be neglected when modeling farmers’ adaptive responses. This is especially relevant when assessing the impact of climate change (CC), which modifies the atmospheric variability and generates new uncertainty conditions, and the possibility of adaptation of agriculture. Our analysis examines this aspect reconstructing the effects of inter-annual climate variability in a diversified farming district that well represents a wide range of rainfed and irrigated agricultural systems in the Mediterranean area. We used a Regional Atmospheric Modelling System and a weather generator to generate 150 stochastic years of the present and near future climate. Then, we implemented calibrated crop and livestock models to estimate the corresponding productive responses in the form of probability distribution functions (PDFs) under the two climatic conditions. We assumed these PDFs able to represent the expectations of farmers in a discrete stochastic programming (DSP) model that reproduced their economic behaviour under uncertainty conditions. The comparison of the results in the two scenarios provided an assessment of the impact of CC, also taking into account the possibility of adjustment allowed by present technologies and price regimes. The DSP model is built in blocks that represent the farm typologies operating in the study area, each one with its own resource endowment, decisional constraints and economic response. Under this latter aspect, major differences emerged among farm typologies and sub-zones of the study area. A crucial element of differentiation was water availability, since only irrigated C3 crops took full advantage from the fertilization effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Rainfed crop production was depressed by the expected reduction of spring rainfall associated to the higher temperatures. So, a dualism emerges between the smaller impact on crop production in the irrigated plain sub-zone, equipped with collective water networks and abundant irrigation resources, and the major negative impact in the hilly area, where these facilities and resources are absent. However intensive dairy farming was also negatively affected in terms of milk production and quality, and cattle mortality because of the increasing summer temperatures. This provides explicit guidance for addressing strategic adaptation policies and for framing farmers’ perception of CC, in order to help them to develop an awareness of the phenomena that are already in progress, which is a prerequisite for effective adaptation responses.
|
|
|
|
Nelson, G. C., van der Mensbrugghe, D., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Calvin, K., Hasegawa, T., et al. (2014). Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 85.
Abstract: Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty.
|
|
|
|
Robinson, S., van Meijl, H., Willenbockel, D., Valin, H., Fujimori, S., Masui, T., et al. (2014). Comparing supply-side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 21–35.
Abstract: This article compares the theoretical and functional specification of production in partial equilibrium (PE) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models of the global agricultural and food system included in the AgMIP model comparison study. The two model families differ in their scopepartial versus economy-wideand in how they represent technology and the behavior of supply and demand in markets. The CGE models are deep structural models in that they explicitly solve the maximization problem of consumers and producers, assuming utility maximization and profit maximization with production/cost functions that include all factor inputs. The PE models divide into two groups on the supply side: (1) shallow structural models, which essentially specify area/yield supply functions with no explicit maximization behavior, and (2) deep structural models that provide a detailed activity-analysis specification of technology and explicit optimizing behavior by producers. While the models vary in their specifications of technology, both within and between the PE and CGE families, we consider two stylized theoretical models to compare the behavior of crop yields and supply functions in CGE models with their behavior in shallow structural PE models. We find that the theoretical responsiveness of supply to changes in prices can be similar, depending on parameter choices that define the behavior of implicit supply functions over the domain of applicability defined by the common scenarios used in the AgMIP comparisons. In practice, however, the applied models are more complex and differ in their empirical sensitivity to variations in specificationcomparability of results given parameter choices is an empirical question. To illustrate the issues, sensitivity analysis is done with one global CGE model, MAGNET, to indicate how the results vary with different specification of technical change, and how they compare with the results from PE models.
|
|
