|
|
Zhao, G., Hoffmann, H., Van Bussel, L. G. J., Enders, A., Specka, X., Sosa, C., et al. (2014). Weather data aggregation’s effect on simulation of cropping systems: a model, production system and crop comparison. ESA Congress, 13 Debrecen,.
|
|
|
|
Zhao, G., Hoffmann, H., Van Bussel, L., Enders, A., Specka, X., Sosa, C., et al. (2014). Weather data aggregation’s effects on simulation of cropping systems: a model, production system and crop comparison. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Interactions of climate, soil and management practices in cropping systems can be simulated at different scales to provide information for decision making. Low resolution simulation need less effort, but important details could be lost through data aggregation effects (DAEs). This paper aims to provide a general method to assess the DAEs on weather data and the simulation of cropping systems, and further investigate how the DAEs vary with changing crop models, crops, variables and production systems. A 30-year continuous cropping system was simulated for winter wheat and silage maize and potential, water-limited and water-nitrogen-limited production situations. Climate data of 1 km resolution and aggregations to resolutions of 10 to 100 km was used as input for the simulations. The data aggregation narrowed the variation of weather data and DAEs increased with increasingly coarser spatial resolution, causing the loss of hot spots in simulated results. Spatial patterns were similar across different resolutions. Consistent with DAEs on weather data, the DAEs on simulated yield (0 to 1.2 t ha-1 for winter wheat and 0 to 1.7 t ha-1 for silage maize), evapotranspiration (3 to 45 mm yr-1 for winter wheat and 4 to 40 mm yr-1 for silage maize), and water use efficiency (0.02 to 0.25 kg m-3 for winter wheat and 0.04 to 0.4 kg m-3 for silage maize), increased with coarser spatial resolution. Thus, if spatial information is needed for local management decisions, higher resolution is needed to adequately capture the spatial heterogeneity or hot spots in the region.
|
|
|
|
von Lampe, M., Willenbockel, D., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Cai, Y., Calvin, K., et al. (2014). Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 3.
Abstract: Recent studies assessing plausible futures for agricultural markets and global food security have had contradictory outcomes. To advance our understanding of the sources of the differences, 10 global economic models that produce long-term scenarios were asked to compare a reference scenario with alternate socioeconomic, climate change, and bioenergy scenarios using a common set of key drivers. Several key conclusions emerge from this exercise: First, for a comparison of scenario results to be meaningful, a careful analysis of the interpretation of the relevant model variables is essential. For instance, the use of real world commodity prices differs widely across models, and comparing the prices without accounting for their different meanings can lead to misleading results. Second, results suggest that, once some key assumptions are harmonized, the variability in general trends across models declines but remains important. For example, given the common assumptions of the reference scenario, models show average annual rates of changes of real global producer prices for agricultural products on average ranging between -0.4% and +0.7% between the 2005 base year and 2050. This compares to an average decline of real agricultural prices of 4% p.a. between the 1960s and the 2000s. Several other common trends are shown, for example, relating to key global growth areas for agricultural production and consumption. Third, differences in basic model parameters such as income and price elasticities, sometimes hidden in the way market behavior is modeled, result in significant differences in the details. Fourth, the analysis shows that agro-economic modelers aiming to inform the agricultural and development policy debate require better data and analysis on both economic behavior and biophysical drivers. More interdisciplinary modeling efforts are required to cross-fertilize analyses at different scales.
|
|
|
|
Ferrise, R., Moriondo, M., Pasqui, M., Primicerio, J., Toscano, P., Semenov, M., et al. (2014). Within-season predictions of durum wheat yield over the Mediterranean Basin. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Crop yield is the result of the interactions between weather in the incoming season and how farmers decide to manage and protect their crops. According to Jones et al. (2000), uncertainties in the weather of the forthcoming season leads farmers to lose some productivity by taking management decisions based on their own experience of the climate or by adopting conservative strategies aimed at reducing the risks. Accordingly, predicting crop yield in advance, in response to different managements, environments and weathers would assist farm-management decisions(Lawless and Semenov, 2005). Following the approach described by Semenov and Doblas-Reyes (2007), this study aimed at assessing the utility of different seasonal forecasting methodologies in predicting durum wheat yield at 10 different sites across the Mediterranean Basin. The crop model, SiriusQuality (Martre et al., 2006), was used to compute wheat yield over a 10-years period. First, the model was run with a set of observed weather data to calculate the reference yield distributions. Then, starting from 1st January, yield predictions were produced at a monthly time-step using seasonal forecasts. The results were compared with the reference yields to assess the efficacy of the forecasting methodologies to estimate within-season yields. The results indicate that durum wheat phenology and yield can be accurately predicted under Mediterranean conditions well before crop maturity, although some differences between the sites and the forecasting methodologies were revealed. Useful information can be thus provided for helping farmers to reduce negative impacts or take advantage from favorable conditions.
|
|
|
|
Bojar, W., Dzieza, G., Sikora, M., Spiewak, J., Wyszkowska, Z., Januszewski, A., et al. (2014). Wybrane metody ograniczania dzialania czynników ryzyka w rolnictwie w swietle wspólczesnych wyzwan (Selected methods of limiting of risk factors in agriculture in a view of contemporary challenges) Y ograniczania dzialania czynników ryzyka w rolnictwie. Roczniki naukowe ekonomii rolnictwa i rozwoju obszarów wiejskich, 101(4), 7–18.
|
|
