Rivington, M., & Wallach, D. (2015). Information to support input data quality and model improvement (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Data quality is a key factor in determining the quality of model estimates and hence a models’ overall utility. Good models run with poor quality explanatory variables and parameters will produce meaningless estimates. Many models are now well developed and have been shown to perform well where and when good quality data is available. Hence a major limitation now to further use of models in new locations and applications is likely to be the availability of good quality data. Improvements in the quality of data may be seen as the starting point of further model improvement, in that better data itself will lead to more accurate model estimates (i.e. through better calibration), and it will facilitate reduction of model residual error by enabling refinements to model equations. This report sets out why data quality is important as well as the basis for additional investment in improving data quality. No Label
|
Pirttioja, N., Carter, T. R., & 47 al., & Rötter, R. P. (2015). A crop model ensemble analysis of temperature and precipitation effects on wheat yield across a European transect using impact response surfaces (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Impact response surfaces (IRSs) of spring and winter wheat yields were constructed from a 26-member ensemble of process-based crop simulation models for sites in Finland, Germany and Spain across a latitudinal transect in Europe. The sensitivity of modelled yield to systematic increments of changes in temperature (-2 to +9°C) and precipitation (-50 to +50%) was tested by modifying values of 1981–2010 baseline weather.In spite of large differences in simulated yield responses to both baseline and changed climate between models, sites, crops and years, several common messages emerged. Ensemble average yields decline with higher temperatures (3–7% per 1°C) and decreased precipitation (3–9% per 10% decrease), but benefit from increased precipitation (0-8% per 10% increase). Yields are more sensitive to temperature than precipitation changes at the Finnish site while sensitivities are mixed at the German and Spanish sites. Precipitation effects diminish under higher temperature changes. Inter-model variability is highest for baseline climate at the Spanish site, but relatively insensitive to changed climate. Modelled responses diverge most at the Finnish and German sites for winter wheat under temperature change. The IRS pattern of yield reliability tracks average yield levels. Inter-annual yield variability is more sensitive to precipitation than temperature, except at the Spanish site for spring wheat.Optimal temperatures for present-day cultivars are close to the baseline under Finnish conditions but below the baseline at the German and Spanish sites. This suggests that adoption of later maturing cultivars with higher temperature requirements might already be advantageous, and increasingly so under future warming. No Label
|
Bellocchi, G., & Sándor, R. (2015). Model intercomparison (Vol. 6).
Abstract: This deliverable focuses on some illustrative results obtained with different grassland- specific, grassland adapted crop and dynamic vegetation models selected out of the first list of models compiled in D-L2.1.1 to simulate biomass and flux data from grassland sites in Europe and peri-Mediterranean regions (D-L2.1.1 and D-L2.1.2). Results from uncalibrated simulations were documented in the D-L2.3 report as a blind exercise. Some model improvements are emphasized in this report due to the higher information level of the model calibrations. The complete set of results will include simulations from uncalibrated and calibrated models. No Label
|
Del Prado, A., Van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A., Chadwick, D., Misselbrook, T., Sandars, D., Audsley, E., et al. (2015). Synergies between mitigation and adaptation to Climate Change in grassland-based farming systems (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Climate change mitigation and adaptation have generally been considered in separate settings for both scientific and policy viewpoints. Recently, it has been stressed (e.g. by the latest IPCC reports) the importance to consider both mitigation and adaptation from land management together. To date, although there is already large amount of studies considering climate mitigation and adaptation in relation to grassland-based systems, there are no studies that analyse the potential synergies and tradeoffs for the main climate change mitigation and adaptation measures within the current European Policy context. This paper reviews which mitigation and adaptation measures interact with each other and how, and it explores the potential limitations and strengths of the different policy instruments that may have an effect in European grassland-based livestock systems. No Label
|
Dalgaard, T., Kjeldsen, C., & Graversgard, M. (2015). Review of regional scale models in the EU and methods commonly used when modelling outcomes of the implementation of the climate change mitigation policies (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Management of Nitrogen (N) losses and the related greenhouse gas emissions is one of the most important environmental issues related to agriculture. This report shows examples of an integrated model tool, developed to quantify the N-dynamics at the complex interface between agriculture and the environment, and quantify effects of different management practices. Based on results from the EU funded research projects NitroEurope (www.NitroEurope.eu) and MEAscope (www.MEA-scope.org), examples from the quantification of farm N-losses in European agricultural landscapes are demonstrated. Applications of the dynamic whole farm model FASSET (www.FASSET.dk), and the Farm-N tool (www.farm-N.dk/FarmNTool) to calculate farm N balances, and distribute the surplus N between different types of N-losses (volatilisation, denitrification, leaching), and the related greenhouse gas emissions, show significant variation between landscapes and management practices. Moreover, significant effects of the nonlinearities, appearing when integrating over time, and scaling up from farm to landscape, are demonstrated. Finally, perspectives for stakeholder involvement is included and general recommendations for landscape level management of farm related nitrogen and greenhouse gas fluxes are made, and discussed in relation to ongoing research in the European research projects. No Label
|
