|
|
Lessire, F., Hornick, J. L., Minet, J., & Dufrasne, I. (2015). Rumination time, milk yield, milking frequency of grazing dairy cows milked by a mobile automatic system during mild heat stress. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 12–14.
|
|
|
|
Minet, J., Laloy, E., Tychon, B., & François, L. (2015). Bayesian inversions of a dynamic vegetation model at four European grassland sites. Biogeosciences, 12(9), 2809–2829.
Abstract: Eddy covariance data from four European grassland sites are used to probabilistically invert the CARAIB (CARbon Assimilation In the Biosphere) dynamic vegetation model (DVM) with 10 unknown parameters, using the DREAM((ZS)) (DiffeRential Evolution Adaptive Metropolis) Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampler. We focus on comparing model inversions, considering both homoscedastic and heteroscedastic eddy covariance residual errors, with variances either fixed a priori or jointly inferred together with the model parameters. Agreements between measured and simulated data during calibration are comparable with previous studies, with root mean square errors (RMSEs) of simulated daily gross primary productivity (GPP), ecosystem respiration (RECO) and evapotranspiration (ET) ranging from 1.73 to 2.19, 1.04 to 1.56 g C m(-2) day(-1) and 0.50 to 1.28 mm day(-1), respectively. For the calibration period, using a homoscedastic eddy covariance residual error model resulted in a better agreement between measured and modelled data than using a heteroscedastic residual error model. However, a model validation experiment showed that CARAIB models calibrated considering heteroscedastic residual errors perform better. Posterior parameter distributions derived from using a heteroscedastic model of the residuals thus appear to be more robust. This is the case even though the classical linear heteroscedastic error model assumed herein did not fully remove heteroscedasticity of the GPP residuals. Despite the fact that the calibrated model is generally capable of fitting the data within measurement errors, systematic bias in the model simulations are observed. These are likely due to model inadequacies such as shortcomings in the photosynthesis modelling. Besides the residual error treatment, differences between model parameter posterior distributions among the four grassland sites are also investigated. It is shown that the marginal distributions of the specific leaf area and characteristic mortality time parameters can be explained by site-specific ecophysiological characteristics.
|
|
|
|
Montesino-San Martín, M., Olesen, J. E., & Porter, J. R. (2015). Can crop-climate models be accurate and precise? A case study for wheat production in Denmark. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 202, 51–60.
Abstract: Crop models, used to make projections of climate change impacts, differ greatly in structural detail. Complexity of model structure has generic effects on uncertainty and error propagation in climate change impact assessments. We applied Bayesian calibration to three distinctly different empirical and mechanistic wheat models to assess how differences in the extent of process understanding in models affects uncertainties in projected impact. Predictive power of the models was tested via both accuracy (bias) and precision (or tightness of grouping) of yield projections for extrapolated weather conditions. Yields predicted by the mechanistic model were generally more accurate than the empirical models for extrapolated conditions. This trend does not hold for all extrapolations; mechanistic and empirical models responded differently due to their sensitivities to distinct weather features. However, higher accuracy comes at the cost of precision of the mechanistic model to embrace all observations within given boundaries. The approaches showed complementarity in sensitivity to weather variables and in accuracy for different extrapolation domains. Their differences in model precision and accuracy make them suitable for generic model ensembles for near-term agricultural impact assessments of climate change.
|
|
|
|
Özkan, Ş., Ahmadi, B. V., Bonesmo, H., Østerås, O., Stott, A., & Harstad, O. M. (2015). Impact of animal health on greenhouse gas emissions. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 24–25.
|
|
|
|
Özkan, Ş., Farquharson, R. J., Hill, J., & Malcolm, B. (2015). A stochastic analysis of the impact of input parameters on profit of Australian pasture-based dairy farms under variable carbon price scenarios. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 163–171.
Abstract: The imposition of a carbon tax in the economy will have indirect impacts on dairy farmers in Australia. Although there is a great deal of information available regarding mitigation strategies both in Australia and internationally, there seems to be a lack of research investigating the variable prices of carbon-based emissions on dairy farm operating profits in Australia. In this study, a stochastic analysis comparing the uncertainty in income in response to different prices on carbon-based emissions was conducted. The impact of variability in pasture consumption and variable prices of concentrates and hay on farm profitability was also investigated. The two different feeding systems examined were a ryegrass pasture-based system (RM) and a complementary forage-based system (CF). Imposing a carbon price ($20-$60) and not changing the systems reduced the farm operating profits by 28.4% and 25.6% in the RM and CF systems, respectively compared to a scenario where no carbon price was imposed. Different farming businesses will respond to variability in the rapidly changing operating environment such as fluctuations in pasture availability, price of purchased feeds and price of milk or carbon emissions differently. Further, in case there is a carbon price imposed for GHG emissions emanated from dairy farming systems, changing from pasture-based to more complex feeding systems incorporating home-grown double crops may reduce the reductions in farm operating profits. There is opportunity for future studies to focus on the impacts of different mitigation strategies and policy applications on farm operating profits. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
