|
|
Webber, H., Gaiser, T., Oomen, R., Teixeira, E., Zhao, G., Wallach, D., et al. (2016). Uncertainty in future irrigation water demand and risk of crop failure for maize in Europe. Environ. Res. Lett., .
Abstract: While crop models are widely used to assess the change in crop productivity with climate change, their skill in assessing irrigation water demand or the risk of crop failure in large area impact assessments is relatively unknown. The objective of this study is to investigate which aspects of modeling crop water use (reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0), soil water extraction, soil evaporation, soil water balance and root growth) contributes most to the variability in estimates of maize crop water use and the risk of crop failure, and demonstrate the resulting uncertainty in a climate change impact study for Europe. The SIMPLACE crop modeling framework was used to couple the LINTUL5 crop model in factorial combinations of 2-3 different approaches for simulating the 5 aspects of crop water use, resulting in 51 modeling approaches. Using experiments in France and New Zeland, analysis of total sensitivity revealed that ET0 explained the most variability in both irrigated maize water use and rainfed grain yield levels, with soil evaporation also imporatant in the French experiment. In the European impact study, net irrigation requirement differed by 36% between the Penman and Hargreaves ET0 methods in the baseline period. Average EU grain yields were similar between models, but differences approached 1-2 tonnes in parts of France and Southern Europe. EU wide esimates of crop failure in the historical period ranged between 5.4 years for Priestley-Taylor to every 7.9 years for the Penman ET0 methods. While the uncertainty in absolute values between models was significant, estimates of relative changes were similar between models, confirming the utility of crop models in assessing climate change impacts. If ET0 estimates in crop models can be improved, through the use of appropriate methods, uncertainty in irrigation water demand as well as in yield estimates under drought can be reduced.
|
|
|
|
Müller, C., Stehfest, E., van Minnen, J., Strengers, B., von, B. W., Beusen, A., et al. (2013). Reversal of the land biosphere carbon balance under climate and land-use change..
|
|
|
|
Müller, C., & Elliott, J. (2013). The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison – Approaches, insights and caveats of modeling climate change impacts on agriculture at the global scale..
|
|
|
|
Dietrich, J. P., Schmitz, C., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., & Muller, C. (2014). Forecasting technological change in agriculture-An endogenous implementation in a global, and use model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 236–249.
Abstract: Technological change in agriculture plays a decisive role for meeting future demands for agricultural goods. However, up to now, agricultural sector models and models on land use change have used technological change as an exogenous input due to various information and data deficiencies. This paper provides a first attempt towards an endogenous implementation based on a measure of agricultural land use intensity. We relate this measure to empirical data on investments in technological change. Our estimated yield elasticity with respect to research investments is 029 and production costs per area increase linearly with an increasing yield level. Implemented in the global land use model MAgPIE (”Model of Agricultural Production and its Impact on the Environment”) this approach provides estimates of future yield growth. Highest future yield increases are required in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. Our validation with FAO data for the period 1995-2005 indicates that the model behavior is in line with observations. By comparing two scenarios on forest conservation we show that protecting sensitive forest areas in the future is possible but requires substantial investments into technological change. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Müller, C. (2014). Impacts of Climate Change and Agricultural Modeling..
|
|
