|
Topp, K., Eory, V., Bannink, A., Bartley, D. J., Blanco-Penedo, I., Cortignani, R., et al. (2017). Modelling climate change adaptation in European agriculture: Definitions and Current Modelling (Vol. 10).
Abstract: Confidential content, in preparation for a peer-reviewed publication.
|
|
|
Schils, R. (2017). Yield gaps of cereals across Europe (Vol. 10).
Abstract: The increasing global demand for food requires a sustainable intensification of crop production in low-yielding areas. Actions to improve crop production in these regions call for accurate spatially explicit identification of yield gaps, i.e. the difference between potential or water-limited yield and actual yield. The Global Yield Gap Atlas (GYGA) project proposes a consistent bottom-up approach to estimate yield gaps. For each country, a climate zonation is overlaid with a crop area map. Within climate zones with important crop areas, weather stations are selected with at least 10 years of daily data. For each of the 3 dominant soil types within a 100 km zone around the weather stations, the potential and water-limited yields are simulated with the WOFOST crop model, using location-specific knowledge on crop systems. Data from variety trials or other experiments, approaching potential or water-limited yields, are used for validation and calibration of the model. Actual yields are taken from sub-national statistics. Yields and yield gaps are scaled up to climate zones and subsequently to countries. The average national simulated wheat yields under rainfed conditions varied from around 5 to 6 t/ha/year in the Mediterranean to nearly 12 t/ha/year on the British Isles and in the Low Countries. The average actual wheat yield varied from around 2 to 3 t/ha/year in the Mediterranean and some countries in East Europe to nearly 9 t/ha/year on the British Isles and in the Low Countries. The average relative yield gaps varied from around 10% to 30% in many countries in Northwest Europe to around 50% to 70% in some countries in the Mediterranean and East Europe. The paper will elaborate on results per climate zone and soil type, and will also include barley and maize. Furthermore we will relate yield gaps to nitrogen use.
|
|
|
Schils, R. (2017). Online maps of Yield Gaps of cereals across Europe (Vol. 10).
Abstract: The yield gap and water productivity analysis of key cereal crops in Europe is completed and results are available through www.yieldgap.org
|
|
|
Yin, X. G., Kersebaum, K. C., Kollas, C., Manevski, K., Baby, S., Beaudoin, N., et al. (2017). Performance of process-based models for simulation of grain N in crop rotations across Europe. Agric. Syst., 154, 63–77.
Abstract: The accurate estimation of crop grain nitrogen (N; N in grain yield) is crucial for optimizing agricultural N management, especially in crop rotations. In the present study, 12 process-based models were applied to simulate the grain N of i) seven crops in rotations, ii) across various pedo-climatic and agro-management conditions in Europe, under both continuous simulation and single year simulation, and for iv) two calibration levels, namely minimal and detailed calibration. Generally, the results showed that the accuracy of the simulations in predicting grain N increased under detailed calibration. The models performed better in predicting the grain N of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), winter barley (Hordewn vulgare L.) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) compared to spring oat (Avena saliva L.), winter rye (Secale cereale L.), pea (Piswn sativum L.) and winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). These differences are linked to the intensity of parameterization with better parameterized crops showing lower prediction errors. The model performance was influenced by N fertilization and irrigation treatments, and a majority of the predictions were more accurate under low N and rainfed treatments. Moreover, the multi-model mean provided better predictions of grain N compared to any individual model. In regard to the Individual models, DAISY, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA and STICS are suitable for predicting grain N of the main crops in typical European crop rotations, which all performed well in both continuous simulation and single year simulation. Our results show that both the model initialization and the cover crop effects in crop rotations should be considered in order to achieve good performance of continuous simulation. Furthermore, the choice of either continuous simulation or single year simulation should be guided by the simulation objectives (e.g. grain yield, grain N content or N dynamics), the crop sequence (inclusion of legumes) and treatments (rate and type of N fertilizer) included in crop rotations and the model formalism.
|
|
|
Liu, B., Asseng, S., Müller, C., Ewert, F., Elliott, J., Lobell, D. B., et al. (2016). Similar estimates of temperature impacts on global wheat yield by three independent methods. Nat. Clim. Change, 6(12), 1130–1136.
|
|