|
|
Hoffmann, H., Zhao, G., Asseng, S., Bindi, M., Biernath, C., Constantin, J., et al. (2016). Impact of spatial soil and climate input data aggregation on regional yield simulations. PLoS One, 11(4), e0151782.
Abstract: We show the error in water-limited yields simulated by crop models which is associated with spatially aggregated soil and climate input data. Crop simulations at large scales (regional, national, continental) frequently use input data of low resolution. Therefore, climate and soil data are often generated via averaging and sampling by area majority. This may bias simulated yields at large scales, varying largely across models. Thus, we evaluated the error associated with spatially aggregated soil and climate data for 14 crop models. Yields of winter wheat and silage maize were simulated under water-limited production conditions. We calculated this error from crop yields simulated at spatial resolutions from 1 to 100 km for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Most models showed yields biased by <15% when aggregating only soil data. The relative mean absolute error (rMAE) of most models using aggregated soil data was in the range or larger than the inter-annual or inter-model variability in yields. This error increased further when both climate and soil data were aggregated. Distinct error patterns indicate that the rMAE may be estimated from few soil variables. Illustrating the range of these aggregation effects across models, this study is a first step towards an ex-ante assessment of aggregation errors in large-scale simulations.
|
|
|
|
Ewert, F., Rötter, R. P., Bindi, M., Webber, H., Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K., et al. (2015). Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change (Vol. 6).
Abstract: The complexity of risks posed by climate change and possible adaptations for crop production has called for integrated assessment and modelling (IAM) approaches linking biophysical and economic models. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the present state of crop modelling to assess climate change risks to food production and to which extent crop models comply with IAM demands. Considerable progress has been made in modelling effects of climate variables, where crop models best satisfy IAM demands. Demands are partly satisfied for simulating commonly required assessment variables. However, progress on the number of simulated crops, uncertainty propagation related to model parameters and structure, adaptations and scaling are less advanced and lagging behind IAM demands. The limitations are considered substantial and apply to a different extent to all crop models. Overcoming these limitations will require joint efforts, and consideration of novel modelling approaches. No Label
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Overview paper on comprehensive framework for assessment of error and uncertainty in crop model predictions (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. Several ways of quantifying prediction uncertainty have been explored in the literature, but there have been no studies of how the different approaches are related to one another, and how they are related to some overall measure of prediction uncertainty. Here we show that all the different approaches can be related to two different viewpoints about the model; either the model is treated as a fixed predictor with some average error, or the model can be treated as a random variable with uncertainty in one or more of model structure, model inputs and model parameters. We discuss the differences, and show how mean squared error of prediction can be estimated in both cases. The results can be used to put uncertainty estimates into a more general framework and to relate different uncertainty estimates to one another and to overall prediction uncertainty. This should lead to a better understanding of crop model prediction uncertainty and the underlying causes of that uncertainty. This study was published as (Wallach et al. 2016)
|
|
|
|
Makowski, D., Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Bassu, S., Durand, J. L., Li, T., et al. (2015). A statistical analysis of three ensembles of crop model responses to temperature and CO2 concentration. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 214-215, 483–493.
Abstract: Ensembles of process-based crop models are increasingly used to simulate crop growth for scenarios of temperature and/or precipitation changes corresponding to different projections of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This approach generates large datasets with thousands of simulated crop yield data. Such datasets potentially provide new information but it is difficult to summarize them in a useful way due to their structural complexities. An associated issue is that it is not straightforward to compare crops and to interpolate the results to alternative climate scenarios not initially included in the simulation protocols. Here we demonstrate that statistical models based on random-coefficient regressions are able to emulate ensembles of process-based crop models. An important advantage of the proposed statistical models is that they can interpolate between temperature levels and between CO2 concentration levels, and can thus be used to calculate temperature and [CO2] thresholds leading to yield loss or yield gain, without rerunning the original complex crop models. Our approach is illustrated with three yield datasets simulated by 19 maize models, 26 wheat models, and 13 rice models. Several statistical models are fitted to these datasets, and are then used to analyze the variability of the yield response to [CO2] and temperature. Based on our results, we show that, for wheat, a [CO2] increase is likely to outweigh the negative effect of a temperature increase of +2 degrees C in the considered sites. Compared to wheat, required levels of [CO2] increase are much higher for maize, and intermediate for rice. For all crops, uncertainties in simulating climate change impacts increase more with temperature than with elevated [CO2].
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann, H., Zhao, G., van Bussel, L. G. J., Enders, A., Specka, X., Sosa, C., et al. (2015). Variability of effects of spatial climate data aggregation on regional yield simulation by crop models. Clim. Res., 65, 53–69.
Abstract: Field-scale crop models are often applied at spatial resolutions coarser than that of the arable field. However, little is known about the response of the models to spatially aggregated climate input data and why these responses can differ across models. Depending on the model, regional yield estimates from large-scale simulations may be biased, compared to simulations with high-resolution input data. We evaluated this so-called aggregation effect for 13 crop models for the region of North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany. The models were supplied with climate data of 1 km resolution and spatial aggregates of up to 100 km resolution raster. The models were used with 2 crops (winter wheat and silage maize) and 3 production situations (potential, water-limited and nitrogen-water-limited growth) to improve the understanding of errors in model simulations related to data aggregation and possible interactions with the model structure. The most important climate variables identified in determining the model-specific input data aggregation on simulated yields were mainly related to changes in radiation (wheat) and temperature (maize). Additionally, aggregation effects were systematic, regardless of the extent of the effect. Climate input data aggregation changed the mean simulated regional yield by up to 0.2 t ha(-1), whereas simulated yields from single years and models differed considerably, depending on the data aggregation. This implies that large-scale crop yield simulations are robust against climate data aggregation. However, large-scale simulations can be systematically biased when being evaluated at higher temporal or spatial resolution depending on the model and its parameterization.
|
|
