|
|
Bassu, S., Brisson, N., Durand, J. - L., Boote, K., Lizaso, J., Jones, J. W., et al. (2014). How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20(7), 2301–2320.
Abstract: Potential consequences of climate change on crop production can be studied using mechanistic crop simulation models. While a broad variety of maize simulation models exist, it is not known whether different models diverge on grain yield responses to changes in climatic factors, or whether they agree in their general trends related to phenology, growth, and yield. With the goal of analyzing the sensitivity of simulated yields to changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO2 ], we present the largest maize crop model intercomparison to date, including 23 different models. These models were evaluated for four locations representing a wide range of maize production conditions in the world: Lusignan (France), Ames (USA), Rio Verde (Brazil) and Morogoro (Tanzania). While individual models differed considerably in absolute yield simulation at the four sites, an ensemble of a minimum number of models was able to simulate absolute yields accurately at the four sites even with low data for calibration, thus suggesting that using an ensemble of models has merit. Temperature increase had strong negative influence on modeled yield response of roughly -0.5 Mg ha(-1) per °C. Doubling [CO2 ] from 360 to 720 μmol mol(-1) increased grain yield by 7.5% on average across models and the sites. That would therefore make temperature the main factor altering maize yields at the end of this century. Furthermore, there was a large uncertainty in the yield response to [CO2 ] among models. Model responses to temperature and [CO2 ] did not differ whether models were simulated with low calibration information or, simulated with high level of calibration information.
|
|
|
|
De Sanctis, G., Roggero, P. P., Seddaiu, G., Orsini, R., Porter, C. H., & Jones, J. W. (2012). Long-term no tillage increased soil organic carbon content of rain-fed cereal systems in a Mediterranean area. European Journal of Agronomy, 40, 18–27.
Abstract: The differential impact on soil organic carbon (SOC) of applying no tillage (NT) compared to conventional tillage (CT, i.e. mouldboard ploughing), along with three rates of nitrogen (N) fertilizer application (0,90 and 180 kg ha(-1) y(-1)), was studied under rain-fed Mediterranean conditions in a long-term experiment based on a durum wheat-maize rotation, in which crop residues were left on the soil (NT) or incorporated (CT). Observed SOC content following 8 and 12 years of continuous treatment application was significantly higher in the top 10 cm of the soil under NT than CT, but it was similar in the 10-40 cm layer. NT grain yields for both maize and durum wheat were below those attained under CT (on average 32% and 14% lower respectively) at a given rate of N fertilizer application. Soil, climate and crop data over 5 years were used to calibrate DSSAT model in order to simulate the impact of the different management practices over a 50-year period. Good agreement was obtained between observed and simulated values for crops grain yield, above-ground biomass and observed SOC values. Results from the simulations showed that under NT the weeds growing during the intercrop fallow period made a significant contribution to the observed SOC increase. When the contribution of the weed fallow was considered, NT significantly increased SOC in the top 40 cm of the soil at an average rate of 0.43, 0.31 and 0.03 t ha(-1) per year, respectively for 180,90 and 0 kg N ha(-1) year(-1), within the simulated 50 years. Under CT, a significant SOC increase was simulated under N180 and a significant decrease when no fertilizer was supplied.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Overview paper on comprehensive framework for assessment of error and uncertainty in crop model predictions (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. Several ways of quantifying prediction uncertainty have been explored in the literature, but there have been no studies of how the different approaches are related to one another, and how they are related to some overall measure of prediction uncertainty. Here we show that all the different approaches can be related to two different viewpoints about the model; either the model is treated as a fixed predictor with some average error, or the model can be treated as a random variable with uncertainty in one or more of model structure, model inputs and model parameters. We discuss the differences, and show how mean squared error of prediction can be estimated in both cases. The results can be used to put uncertainty estimates into a more general framework and to relate different uncertainty estimates to one another and to overall prediction uncertainty. This should lead to a better understanding of crop model prediction uncertainty and the underlying causes of that uncertainty. This study was published as (Wallach et al. 2016)
|
|
|
|
Rötter, R. P., Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J. W., Hatfield, J. L., et al. (2013). Quantifying Uncertainties in Modeling Crop Water Use under Climate Change..
|
|
|
|
Nendel, C., Ewert, F., Rötter, R. P., Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J. W., Hatfield, J. L., et al. (2013). Addressing challenges and uncertainties for, the use of agro-ecosystem models to, assess climate change impact and food security across scales..
|
|
