| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Challinor, A.J.; Müller, C.; Asseng, S.; Deva, C.; Nicklin, K.J.; Wallach, D.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Whitfield, S.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Koehler, A.-K. |
|
| |
Title  |
Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Syst. |
|
| |
Volume |
159 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
296-306 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Crop model; Risk assessment; Climate change impacts; Adaptation; Climate models; Uncertainty |
|
| |
Abstract |
Highlights
• 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments
Abstract
Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
phase 2+ |
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0308521x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
CropM |
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5175 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Rodriguez, A.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Palosuo, T.; Carter, T.R.; Fronzek, S.; Lorite, I.J.; Ferrise, R.; Pirttioja, N.; Bindi, M.; Baranowski, P.; Buis, S.; Cammarano, D.; Chen, Y.; Dumont, B.; Ewert, F.; Gaiser, T.; Hlavinka, P.; Hoffmann, H.; Hohn, J.G.; Jurecka, F.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Krzyszczak, J.; Lana, M.; Mechiche-Alami, A.; Minet, J.; Montesino, M.; Nendel, C.; Porter, J.R.; Ruget, F.; Semenov, M.A.; Steinmetz, Z.; Stratonovitch, P.; Supit, I.; Tao, F.; Trnka, M.; de Wit, A.; Roetter, R.P. |
|
| |
Title |
Implications of crop model ensemble size and composition for estimates of adaptation effects and agreement of recommendations |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2019 |
Publication |
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology |
|
| |
Volume |
264 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
351-362 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Wheat adaptation; Uncertainty; Climate change; Decision support; Response surface; Outcome confidence; Climate-Change Impacts; Response Surfaces; Wheat; Uncertainty; Yield; Simulation; 21St-Century; Productivity; Temperature; Projections |
|
| |
Abstract |
unless local adaptation can ameliorate these impacts. Ensembles of crop simulation models can be useful tools for assessing if proposed adaptation options are capable of achieving target yields, whilst also quantifying the share of uncertainty in the simulated crop impact resulting from the crop models themselves. Although some studies have analysed the influence of ensemble size on model outcomes, the effect of ensemble composition has not yet been properly appraised. Moreover, results and derived recommendations typically rely on averaged ensemble simulation results without accounting sufficiently for the spread of model outcomes. Therefore, we developed an Ensemble Outcome Agreement (EOA) index, which analyses the effect of changes in composition and size of a multi-model ensemble (MME) to evaluate the level of agreement between MME outcomes with respect to a given hypothesis (e.g. that adaptation measures result in positive crop responses). We analysed the recommendations of a previous study performed with an ensemble of 17 crop models and testing 54 adaptation options for rainfed winter wheat (Triticum aestivwn L.) at Lleida (NE Spain) under perturbed conditions of temperature, precipitation and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Our results confirmed that most adaptations recommended in the previous study have a positive effect. However, we also showed that some options did not remain recommendable in specific conditions if different ensembles were considered. Using EOA, we were able to identify the adaptation options for which there is high confidence in their effectiveness at enhancing yields, even under severe climate perturbations. These include substituting spring wheat for winter wheat combined with earlier sowing dates and standard or longer duration cultivars, or introducing supplementary irrigation, the latter increasing EOA values in all cases. There is low confidence in recovering yields to baseline levels, although this target could be attained for some adaptation options under moderate climate perturbations. Recommendations derived from such robust results may provide crucial information for stakeholders seeking to implement adaptation measures. |
|
| |
Address |
2019-01-07 |
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0168-1923 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5214 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Faye, B.; Webber, H.; Naab, J.B.; MacCarthy, D.S.; Adam, M.; Ewert, F.; Lamers, J.P.A.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Ruane, A.; Gessner, U.; Hoogenboom, G.; Boote, K.; Shelia, V.; Saeed, F.; Wisser, D.; Hadir, S.; Laux, P.; Gaiser, T. |
|
| |
Title |
Impacts of 1.5 versus 2.0 degrees C on cereal yields in the West African Sudan Savanna |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2018 |
Publication |
Environmental Research Letters |
Abbreviated Journal |
Environ. Res. Lett. |
|
| |
Volume |
13 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
034014 |
|
| |
Keywords |
1.5 degrees C; West Africa; food security; climate change; DSSAT; SIMPLACE; Climate-Change Impacts; Sub-Saharan Africa; Food Security; Heat-Stress; Canopy Temperature; Paris Agreement; Pearl-Millet; Maize Yield; Crop; Yields; Model; MACSUR or FACCE acknowledged. |
|
| |
Abstract |
To reduce the risks of climate change, governments agreed in the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise to less than 2.0 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, with the ambition to keep warming to 1.5 degrees C. Charting appropriate mitigation responses requires information on the costs of mitigating versus associated damages for the two levels of warming. In this assessment, a critical consideration is the impact on crop yields and yield variability in regions currently challenged by food insecurity. The current study assessed impacts of 1.5 degrees C versus 2.0 degrees C on yields of maize, pearl millet and sorghum in the West African Sudan Savanna using two crop models that were calibrated with common varieties from experiments in the region with management reflecting a range of typical sowing windows. As sustainable intensification is promoted in the region for improving food security, simulations were conducted for both current fertilizer use and for an intensification case (fertility not limiting). With current fertilizer use, results indicated 2% units higher losses for maize and sorghum with 2.0 degrees C compared to 1.5 degrees C warming, with no change in millet yields for either scenario. In the intensification case, yield losses due to climate change were larger than with current fertilizer levels. However, despite the larger losses, yields were always two to three times higher with intensification, irrespective of the warming scenario. Though yield variability increased with intensification, there was no interaction with warming scenario. Risk and market analysis are needed to extend these results to understand implications for food security. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
1748-9326 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5196 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Watson, J.; Challinor, A.J. |
|
| |
Title |
Identifying traits for genotypic adaptation using crop models |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Journal of Experimental Botany |
Abbreviated Journal |
J. Experim. Bot. |
|
| |
Volume |
66 |
Issue |
12 |
Pages |
3451-3462 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Adaptation, Physiological/*genetics; Crops, Agricultural/*genetics; Environment; Genotype; *Models, Theoretical; *Quantitative Trait, Heritable; Climate change; crop models; genotypic adaptation; ideotypes; impacts |
|
| |
Abstract |
Genotypic adaptation involves the incorporation of novel traits in crop varieties so as to enhance food productivity and stability and is expected to be one of the most important adaptation strategies to future climate change. Simulation modelling can provide the basis for evaluating the biophysical potential of crop traits for genotypic adaptation. This review focuses on the use of models for assessing the potential benefits of genotypic adaptation as a response strategy to projected climate change impacts. Some key crop responses to the environment, as well as the role of models and model ensembles for assessing impacts and adaptation, are first reviewed. Next, the review describes crop-climate models can help focus the development of future-adapted crop germplasm in breeding programmes. While recently published modelling studies have demonstrated the potential of genotypic adaptation strategies and ideotype design, it is argued that, for model-based studies of genotypic adaptation to be used in crop breeding, it is critical that modelled traits are better grounded in genetic and physiological knowledge. To this aim, two main goals need to be pursued in future studies: (i) a better understanding of plant processes that limit productivity under future climate change; and (ii) a coupling between genetic and crop growth models-perhaps at the expense of the number of traits analysed. Importantly, the latter may imply additional complexity (and likely uncertainty) in crop modelling studies. Hence, appropriately constraining processes and parameters in models and a shift from simply quantifying uncertainty to actually quantifying robustness towards modelling choices are two key aspects that need to be included into future crop model-based analyses of genotypic adaptation. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0022-0957 1460-2431 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Review |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4645 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Hutchings, N.J.; Özkan Gülzari, Ş.; de Haan, M.; Sandars, D. |
|
| |
Title |
How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2018 |
Publication |
Animal |
Abbreviated Journal |
Animal |
|
| |
Volume |
12 |
Issue |
10 |
Pages |
2171-2180 |
|
| |
Keywords |
dairy cattle; farm-scale; model; greenhouse gas; Future Climate Scenarios; Systems-Analysis; Milk-Production; Crop; Production; Mitigation; Intensity; Impacts |
|
| |
Abstract |
The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DailyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet) x two soil types (sandy and clayey) x two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO(2)e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools. |
|
| |
Address |
2019-01-07 |
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
1751-7311 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5212 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
