|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Estimating model prediction error: Should you treat predictions as fixed or random. Env. Model. Softw., 84, 529–539.
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. We compare two criteria of prediction error; MSEPfixed, which evaluates mean squared error of prediction for a model with fixed structure, parameters and inputs, and MSEPuncertain(X), which evaluates mean squared error averaged over the distributions of model structure, inputs and parameters. Comparison of model outputs with data can be used to estimate the former. The latter has a squared bias term, which can be estimated using hindcasts, and a model variance term, which can be estimated from a simulation experiment. The separate contributions to MSEPuncertain(X) can be estimated using a random effects ANOVA. It is argued that MSEPuncertain(X) is the more informative uncertainty criterion, because it is specific to each prediction situation.
|
|
|
|
Coles, G. D., Wratten, S. D., & Porter, J. R. (2016). Food and nutritional security requires adequate protein as well as energy, delivered from whole-year crop production. PeerJ, 4, 17.
Abstract: Human food security requires the production of sufficient quantities of both high-quality protein and dietary energy. In a series of case-studies from New Zealand, we show that while production of food ingredients from crops on arable land can meet human dietary energy requirements effectively, requirements for high-quality protein are met more efficiently by animal production from such land. We present a model that can be used to assess dietary energy and quality-corrected protein production from various crop and crop/animal production systems, and demonstrate its utility. We extend our analysis with an accompanying economic analysis of commercially available pre-prepared or simply-cooked foods that can be produced from our case-study crop and animal products. We calculate the per-person, per-day cost of both quality-corrected protein and dietary energy as provided in the processed foods. We conclude that mixed dairy/cropping systems provide the greatest quantity of high quality protein per unit price to the consumer, have the highest food energy production and can support the dietary requirements of the highest number of people, when assessed as all-year-round production systems. Global food and nutritional security will largely be an outcome of national or regional agroeconomies addressing their town food needs. We hope that lour model will be used for similar analyses of food production systems in other countries, agroecological zones and economies.
|
|
|
|
Mitter, H., Sinabell, F., & E., S. (2013). Assessing climate change and policy impacts on protein crop production in Austria. (pp. 527–535).
|
|
|
|
Banse, M., Brouwer, F., Palatnik, R. R., & Sinabell, F. (2014). The Economics of European Agriculture under Conditions of Climate Change (Editorial). German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(3), 131–132.
Abstract: This Special Issue on “The Economics of European Agriculture under Conditions of Climate Change” brings together a selection of papers that contribute to the understanding of recent developments related to agriculture and climate change in four European coun- tries. The focus of the Special Issue is on quantitative modeling and empirical analyses. The papers presented here not only cover the heterogeneity of agriculture in Europe with case studies from the Mediterranean (Italy), central (Austria) and north-western Europe (Ireland and Scotland) but also give insights into the diversity of quantitative modeling approaches in agriculture.
|
|
|
|
Kuhnert, M., Yeluripati, J., Smith, P., Hoffmann, H., van Oijen, M., Constantin, J., et al. (2016). Impact analysis of climate data aggregation at different spatial scales on simulated net primary productivity for croplands. European Journal of Agronomy, 88, 41–52.
Abstract: For spatial crop and agro-systems modelling, there is often a discrepancy between the scale of measured driving data and the target resolution. Spatial data aggregation is often necessary, which can introduce additional uncertainty into the simulation results. Previous studies have shown that climate data aggregation has little effect on simulation of phenological stages, but effects on net primary production (NPP) might still be expected through changing the length of the growing season and the period of grain filling. This study investigates the impact of spatial climate data aggregation on NPP simulation results, applying eleven different models for the same study region (∼34,000 km2), situated in Western Germany. To isolate effects of climate, soil data and management were assumed to be constant over the entire study area and over the entire study period of 29 years. Two crops, winter wheat and silage maize, were tested as monocultures. Compared to the impact of climate data aggregation on yield, the effect on NPP is in a similar range, but is slightly lower, with only small impacts on averages over the entire simulation period and study region. Maximum differences between the five scales in the range of 1–100 km grid cells show changes of 0.4–7.8% and 0.0–4.8% for wheat and maize, respectively, whereas the simulated potential NPP averages of the models show a wide range (1.9–4.2 g C m−2 d−1 and 2.7–6.1 g C m−2 d−1for wheat and maize, respectively). The impact of the spatial aggregation was also tested for shorter time periods, to see if impacts over shorter periods attenuate over longer periods. The results show larger impacts for single years (up to 9.4% for wheat and up to 13.6% for maize). An analysis of extreme weather conditions shows an aggregation effect in vulnerability up to 12.8% and 15.5% between the different resolutions for wheat and maize, respectively. Simulations of NPP averages over larger areas (e.g. regional scale) and longer time periods (several years) are relatively insensitive to climate data.
|
|
