|
|
Tao, F., Palosuo, T., Roetter, R. P., Hernandez Diaz-Ambrona, C. G., Ines Minguez, M., Semenov, M. A., et al. (2020). Why do crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections? A comprehensive analysis based on eight barley crop models. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 281, 107851.
Abstract: Robust projections of climate impact on crop growth and productivity by crop models are key to designing effective adaptations to cope with future climate risk. However, current crop models diverge strongly in their climate impact projections. Previous studies tried to compare or improve crop models regarding the impact of one single climate variable. However, this approach is insufficient, considering that crop growth and yield are affected by the interactive impacts of multiple climate change factors and multiple interrelated biophysical processes. Here, a new comprehensive analysis was conducted to look holistically at the reasons why crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections and to investigate which biophysical processes and knowledge gaps are key factors affecting this uncertainty and should be given the highest priorities for improvement. First, eight barley models and eight climate projections for the 2050s were applied to investigate the uncertainty from crop model structure in climate impact projections for barley growth and yield at two sites: Jokioinen, Finland (Boreal) and Lleida, Spain (Mediterranean). Sensitivity analyses were then conducted on the responses of major crop processes to major climatic variables including temperature, precipitation, irradiation, and CO2, as well as their interactions, for each of the eight crop models. The results showed that the temperature and CO2 relationships in the models were the major sources of the large discrepancies among the models in climate impact projections. In particular, the impacts of increases in temperature and CO2 on leaf area development were identified as the major causes for the large uncertainty in simulating changes in evapotranspiration, above-ground biomass, and grain yield. Our findings highlight that advancements in understanding the basic processes and thresholds by which climate warming and CO2 increases will affect leaf area development, crop evapotranspiration, photosynthesis, and grain formation in contrasting environments are needed for modeling their impacts.
|
|
|
|
Hlavinka, P., Kersebaum, K. C., Dubrovský, M., Fischer, M., Pohanková, E., Balek, J., et al. (2015). Water balance, drought stress and yields for rainfed field crop rotations under present and future conditions in the Czech Republic. Clim. Res., 65, 175–192.
Abstract: Continuous crop rotation modeling is a prospective trend that, compared to 1-crop or discrete year-by-year calculations, can provide more accurate results that are closer to real conditions. The goal of this study was to compare the water balance and yields estimated by the HERMES crop rotation model for present and future climatic conditions in the Czech Republic. Three locations were selected, representing important agricultural regions with different climatic conditions. Crop rotation (spring barley, silage maize, winter wheat, winter rape) was simulated from 1981-2080. The 1981-2010 period was covered by measured meteorological data, while 2011-2080 was represented by a transient synthetic weather series from the weather generator M& Rfi. The data were based on 5 circulation models, representing an ensemble of 18 CMIP3 global circulation models, to preserve much of the uncertainty of the original ensemble. Two types of crop management were compared, and the influences of soil quality, increasing atmospheric CO2 and adaptation measures (i. e. sowing date changes) were also considered. Results suggest that under a ‘dry’ scenario (such as GFCM21), C-3 crops in drier regions will be devastated for a significant number of seasons. Negative impacts are likely even on premium-quality soils regardless of flexible sowing dates and accounting for increasing CO2 concentrations. Moreover, in dry conditions, the use of crop rotations with catch crops may have negative impacts, exacerbating the soil water deficit for subsequent crops. This approach is a promising method for determining how various management strategies and crop rotations can affect yields as well as water, carbon and nitrogen cycling.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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: ► We compared nine crop simulation models for spring barley at seven sites in Europe. ► Applying crop models with restricted calibration leads to high uncertainties. ► Multi-crop model mean yield estimates were in good agreement with observations. ► The degree of uncertainty for simulated grain yield of barley was similar to winter wheat. ► We need more suitable data enabling us to verify different processes in the models. 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.
|
|
|
|
Gabaldón-Leal, C., Webber, H., Otegui, M. E., Slafer, G. A., Ordonez, R. A., Gaiser, T., et al. (2016). Modelling the impact of heat stress on maize yield formation. Field Crops Research, 198, 226–237.
Abstract: The frequency and intensity of extreme high temperature events are expected to increase with climate change. Higher temperatures near anthesis have a large negative effect on maize (Zea mays, L.) grain yield. While crop growth models are commonly used to assess climate change impacts on maize and other crops, it is only recently that they have accounted for such heat stress effects, despite limited field data availability for model evaluation. There is also increasing awareness but limited testing of the importance of canopy temperature as compared to air temperature for heat stress impact simulations. In this study, four independent irrigated field trials with controlled heating imposed using polyethylene shelters were used to develop and evaluate a heat stress response function in the crop modeling framework SIMPLACE, in which the Lintul5 crop model was combined with a canopy temperature model. A dataset from Argentina with the temperate hybrid Nidera AX 842 MG (RM 119) was used to develop a yield reduction function based on accumulated hourly stress thermal time above a critical temperature of 34 degrees C. A second dataset from Spain with a FAO 700 cultivar was used to evaluate the model with daily weather inputs in two sets of simulations. The first was used to calibrate SIMPLACE for conditions with no heat stress, and the second was used to evaluate SIMPLACE under conditions of heat stress using the reduction factor obtained with the Argentine dataset. Both sets of simulations were conducted twice; with the heat stress function alternatively driven with air and simulated canopy temperature. Grain yield simulated under heat stress conditions improved when canopy temperature was used instead of air temperature (RMSE equal to 175 and 309 g m(-2), respectively). For the irrigated and high radiative conditions, raising the critical threshold temperature for heat stress to 39 degrees C improved yield simulation using air temperature (RMSE: 221 gm(-2)) without the need to simulate canopy temperature (RMSE: 175 gm(-2)). However, this approach of adjusting thresholds is only likely to work in environments where climatic variables and the level of soil water deficit are constant, such as irrigated conditions and are not appropriate for rainfed production conditions. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
