|
|
Wu, L., Whitmore, A. P., & Bellocchi, G. (2015). Modelling the impact of environmental changes on grassland systems with SPACSYS. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 37–39.
|
|
|
|
Zhao, G., Siebert, S., Enders, A., Rezaei, E. E., Yan, C., & Ewert, F. (2015). Demand for multi-scale weather data for regional crop modeling. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 200, 156–171.
Abstract: A spatial resolution needs to be determined prior to using models to simulate crop yields at a regional scale, but a dilemma exists in compromising between different demands. A fine spatial resolution demands extensive computation load for input data assembly, model runs, and output analysis. A coarse spatial resolution could result in loss of spatial detail in variability. This paper studied the impact of spatial resolution, data aggregation and spatial heterogeneity of weather data on simulations of crop yields, thus providing guidelines for choosing a proper spatial resolution for simulations of crop yields at regional scale. Using a process-based crop model SIMPLACE (LINTUL2) and daily weather data at 1 km resolution we simulated a continuous rainfed winter wheat cropping system at the national scale of Germany. Then we aggregated the weather data to four resolutions from 10 to 100 km, repeated the simulation, compared them with the 1 km results, and correlated the difference with the intra-pixel heterogeneity quantified by an ensemble of four semivariogram models. Aggregation of weather data had small effects over regions with a flat terrain located in northern Germany, but large effects over southern regions with a complex topography. The spatial distribution of yield bias at different spatial resolutions was consistent with the intra-pixel spatial heterogeneity of the terrain and a log-log linear relationship between them was established. By using this relationship we demonstrated the way to optimize the model resolution to minimize both the number of simulation runs and the expected loss of spatial detail in variability due to aggregation effects. We concluded that a high spatial resolution is desired for regions with high spatial environmental heterogeneity, and vice versa. This calls for the development of multi-scale approaches in regional and global crop modeling. The obtained results require substantiation for other production situations, crops, output variables and for different crop models. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
van Bussel, L. G. J., Ewert, F., Zhao, G., Hoffmann, H., Enders, A., Wallach, D., et al. (2016). Spatial sampling of weather data for regional crop yield simulations. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 220, 101–115.
Abstract: Field-scale crop models are increasingly applied at spatio-temporal scales that range from regions to the globe and from decades up to 100 years. Sufficiently detailed data to capture the prevailing spatio-temporal heterogeneity in weather, soil, and management conditions as needed by crop models are rarely available. Effective sampling may overcome the problem of missing data but has rarely been investigated. In this study the effect of sampling weather data has been evaluated for simulating yields of winter wheat in a region in Germany over a 30-year period (1982-2011) using 12 process-based crop models. A stratified sampling was applied to compare the effect of different sizes of spatially sampled weather data (10, 30, 50,100, 500, 1000 and full coverage of 34,078 sampling points) on simulated wheat yields. Stratified sampling was further compared with random sampling. Possible interactions between sample size and crop model were evaluated. The results showed differences in simulated yields among crop models but all models reproduced well the pattern of the stratification. Importantly, the regional mean of simulated yields based on full coverage could already be reproduced by a small sample of 10 points. This was also true for reproducing the temporal variability in simulated yields but more sampling points (about 100) were required to accurately reproduce spatial yield variability. The number of sampling points can be smaller when a stratified sampling is applied as compared to a random sampling. However, differences between crop models were observed including some interaction between the effect of sampling on simulated yields and the model used. We concluded that stratified sampling can considerably reduce the number of required simulations. But, differences between crop models must be considered as the choice for a specific model can have larger effects on simulated yields than the sampling strategy. Assessing the impact of sampling soil and crop management data for regional simulations of crop yields is still needed.
|
|
|
|
Caubel, J., García de Cortázar-Atauri, I., Launay, M., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Huard, F., Bertuzzi, P., et al. (2015). Broadening the scope for ecoclimatic indicators to assess crop climate suitability according to ecophysiological, technical and quality criteria. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 207, 94–106.
Abstract: The cultivation of crops in a given area is highly dependent of climatic conditions. Assessment of how the climate is favorable is highly useful for planners, land managers, farmers and plant breeders who can propose and apply adaptation strategies to improve agricultural potentialities. The aim of this study was to develop an assessment method for crop-climate suitability that was generic enough to be applied to a wide range of issues and crops. The method proposed is based on agroclimatic indicators that are calculated over phenological periods (ecoclimatic indicators). These indicators are highly relevant since they provide accurate information about the effect of climate on particular plant processes and cultural practices that take place during specific phenological periods. Three case studies were performed in order to illustrate the potentialities of the method. They concern annual (maize and wheat) and perennial (grape) crops and focus on the study of climate suitability in terms of the following criteria: ecophysiological, days available to carry out cultural practices, and harvest quality. The analysis of the results revealed both the advantages and limitations of the method. The method is general and flexible enough to be applied to a wide range of issues even if an expert assessment is initially needed to build the analysis framework. The limited number of input data makes it possible to use it to explore future possibilities for agriculture in many areas. The access to intermediate information through elementary ecoclimatic indicators allows users to propose targeted adaptations when climate suitability is not satisfactory.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
