|
Hoffmann, H., Gang, Z., Van Bussel, L. G. J., Enders, A., Specka, X., Sosa, C., et al. (2014). Sensitivity of crop models to spatial aggregation of soil and climate data..
|
Elsgaard, L., Børgesen, C. D., Olesen, J. E., Siebert, S., Ewert, F., Peltonen-Sainio, P., et al. (2012). Shifts in comparative advantages for maize, oat and wheat cropping under climate change in Europe. Food Addit. Contam. Part A, 29(10), 1514–1526.
Abstract: Climate change is anticipated to affect European agriculture, including the risk of emerging or re-emerging feed and food hazards. Indirectly, climate change may influence such hazards (e.g. the occurrence of mycotoxins) due to geographic shifts in the distribution of major cereal cropping systems and the consequences this may have for crop rotations. This paper analyses the impact of climate on cropping shares of maize, oat and wheat on a 50-km square grid across Europe (45-65°N) and provides model-based estimates of the changes in cropping shares in response to changes in temperature and precipitation as projected for the time period around 2040 by two regional climate models (RCM) with a moderate and a strong climate change signal, respectively. The projected cropping shares are based on the output from the two RCMs and on algorithms derived for the relation between meteorological data and observed cropping shares of maize, oat and wheat. The observed cropping shares show a south-to-north gradient, where maize had its maximum at 45-55°N, oat had its maximum at 55-65°N, and wheat was more evenly distributed along the latitudes in Europe. Under the projected climate changes, there was a general increase in maize cropping shares, whereas for oat no areas showed distinct increases. For wheat, the projected changes indicated a tendency towards higher cropping shares in the northern parts and lower cropping shares in the southern parts of the study area. The present modelling approach represents a simplification of factors determining the distribution of cereal crops, and also some uncertainties in the data basis were apparent. A promising way of future model improvement could be through a systematic analysis and inclusion of other variables, such as key soil properties and socio-economic conditions, influencing the comparative advantages of specific crops.
|
|
Liu, B., Asseng, S., Müller, C., Ewert, F., Elliott, J., Lobell, D. B., et al. (2016). Similar estimates of temperature impacts on global wheat yield by three independent methods. Nat. Clim. Change, 6(12), 1130–1136.
|
Webber, H., Ewert, F., Kimball, B. A., Siebert, S., White, J. W., Wall, G. W., et al. (2016). Simulating canopy temperature for modelling heat stress in cereals. Env. Model. Softw., 77, 143–155.
Abstract: Crop models must be improved to account for the effects of heat stress events on crop yields. To date, most approaches in crop models use air temperature to define heat stress intensity as the cumulative sum of thermal times (TT) above a high temperature threshold during a sensitive period for yield formation. However, observational evidence indicates that crop canopy temperature better explains yield reductions associated with high temperature events than air temperature does. This study presents a canopy level energy balance using Monin ObukhovSimilarity Theory (MOST) with simplifications about the canopy resistance that render it suitable for application in crop models and other models of the plant environment. The model is evaluated for a uniform irrigated wheat canopy in Arizona and rainfed maize in Burkina Faso. No single variable regression relationships for key explanatory variables were found that were consistent across sowing dates to explain the deviation of canopy temperature from air temperature. Finally, thermal times determined with simulated canopy temperatures were able to reproduce thermal times calculated with observed canopy temperature, whereas those determined with air temperatures were not. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., et al. (2012). Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models. Field Crops Research, 133, 23–36.
Abstract: In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
