|
Rötter, R. P., Höhn, J. K., Palosuo, T., Kassie, B. T., Paff, K., Tao, F., et al. (2015). Yield gap and variability analysis for different aro-technologies for maize and wheat (YGV study).. Ithaca (U.S.A.).
|
Rötter, R. P., Tao, F., Höhn, J. G., & Palosuo, T. (2015). Use of crop simulation modelling to aid ideotype design of future cereal cultivars. J. Experim. Bot., 66(12), 3463–3476.
Abstract: A major challenge of the 21st century is to achieve food supply security under a changing climate and roughly a doubling in food demand by 2050 compared to present, the majority of which needs to be met by the cereals wheat, rice, maize, and barley. Future harvests are expected to be especially threatened through increased frequency and severity of extreme events, such as heat waves and drought, that pose particular challenges to plant breeders and crop scientists. Process-based crop models developed for simulating interactions between genotype, environment, and management are widely applied to assess impacts of environmental change on crop yield potentials, phenology, water use, etc. During the last decades, crop simulation has become important for supporting plant breeding, in particular in designing ideotypes, i.e. ‘model plants’, for different crops and cultivation environments. In this review we (i) examine the main limitations of crop simulation modelling for supporting ideotype breeding, (ii) describe developments in cultivar traits in response to climate variations, and (iii) present examples of how crop simulation has supported evaluation and design of cereal cultivars for future conditions. An early success story for rice demonstrates the potential of crop simulation modelling for ideotype breeding. Combining conventional crop simulation with new breeding methods and genetic modelling holds promise to accelerate delivery of future cereal cultivars for different environments. Robustness of model-aided ideotype design can further be enhanced through continued improvements of simulation models to better capture effects of extremes and the use of multi-model ensembles.
|
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.
|
|
Palosuo, T., Rötter, P., Lehtonen, H., Virkajärvi, P., & Salo, T. (2013). How to assess climate change impacts on farmers’ crop yields? (pp. 327–334).
|
|
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..
|
