|
|
Challinor, A. J., Müller, C., Asseng, S., Deva, C., Nicklin, K. J., Wallach, D., et al. (2017). Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation. Agric. Syst., 159, 296–306.
Abstract: Highlights
• 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments
Abstract
Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper.
|
|
|
|
Holman, I. P., Brown, C., Janes, V., & Sandars, D. (2017). Can we be certain about future land use change in Europe? A multi-scenario, integrated-assessment analysis. Agric. Syst., 151, 126–135.
Abstract: The global land system is facing unprecedented pressures from growing human populations and climatic change. Understanding the effects these pressures may have is necessary to designing land management strategies that ensure food security, ecosystem service provision and successful climate mitigation and adaptation. However, the number of complex, interacting effects involved makes any complete understanding very difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, the recent development of integrated modelling frameworks allows for the exploration of the co-development of human and natural systems under scenarios of global change, potentially illuminating the main drivers and processes in future land system change. Here, we use one such integrated modelling framework (the CLIMSAVE Integrated Assessment Platform) to investigate the range of projected outcomes in the European land system across climatic and socio-economic scenarios for the 2050s. We find substantial consistency in locations and types of change even under the most divergent conditions, with results suggesting that climate change alone will lead to a contraction in the agricultural and forest area within Europe, particularly in southern Europe. This is partly offset by the introduction of socioeconomic changes that change both the demand for agricultural production, through changing food demand and net imports, and the efficiency of agricultural production. Simulated extensification and abandonment in the Mediterranean region is driven by future decreases in the relative profitability of the agricultural sector in southern Europe, owing to decreased productivity as a consequence of increased heat and drought stress and reduced irrigation water availability. The very low likelihood (<33% probability) that current land use proportions in many parts of Europe will remain unchanged suggests that future policy should seek to promote and support the multifunctional role of agriculture and forests in different European regions, rather than focusing on increased productivity as a route to agricultural and forestry viability.
|
|
|
|
Schaap, B. F., Reidsma, P., Verhagen, J., Wolf, J., & van Ittersum, M. K. (2013). Participatory design of farm level adaptation to climate risks in an arable region in The Netherlands. European Journal of Agronomy, 48, 30–42.
Abstract: In the arable farming region Flevoland in The Netherlands climate change, including extreme events and pests and diseases, will likely pose risks to a variety of crops including high value crops such as seed potato, ware potato and seed onion. A well designed adaptation strategy at the farm level can reduce risks for farmers in Flevoland. Currently, most of the impact assessments rely heavily on (modelling) techniques that cannot take into account extreme events and pests and diseases and cannot address all crops, and are thus not suited as input for a comprehensive adaptation strategy at the farm level. To identify major climate risks and impacts and develop an adaptation measure portfolio for the most relevant risks we complemented crop growth modelling with a semi-quantitative and participatory approach, the Agro Climatic Calendar (ACC), A cost-benefit analysis and stakeholder workshops were used to identify robust adaptation measures and design an adaptation strategy for contrasting scenarios in 2050. For Flevoland, potential yields of main crops were projected to increase, but five main climate risks were identified, and these are likely to offset the positive impacts. Optimized adaptation strategies differ per scenario (frequency of occurrence of climate risks) and per farm (difference in economic loss). When impacts are high (in the +2 degrees C and A1 SRES scenario) drip irrigation was identified as the best adaptation measure against the main climate risk heat wave that causes second-growth in seed and ware potato. When impacts are smaller (the +1 degrees C and B2 SRES scenario), other options including no adaptation are more cost-effective. Our study shows that with relatively simple techniques such as the ACC combined with a stakeholder process, adaptation strategies can be designed for whole farming systems. Important benefits of this approach compared to modelling techniques are that all crops can be included, all climate factors can be addressed, and a large range of adaptation measures can be explored. This enhances that the identified adaptation strategies are recognizable and relevant for stakeholders. (C) 2013 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: 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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
