|
|
Graß, R., Thies, B., Kersebaum, K. - C., & Wachendorf, M. (2015). Simulating dry matter yield of two cropping systems with the simulation model HERMES to evaluate impact of future climate change. European Journal of Agronomy, 70, 1–10.
Abstract: Regionalized model calculations showed increased rainfall and temperatures in winter and less precipitation and higher temperatures in summer due to climate change effects in the future for numerous countries in the northern hemisphere. Furthermore, model simulations predicted enhanced weather variability with an increased risk of yield losses and reduced yield stability. Recently, double cropping systems (DCS) were suggested as an environmental friendly and productive adaptation strategy with increased yield stability. This paper reviews the potential benefit of four DCS (rye (Secale cereale L.) as first crop and maize (Zea mays L.), sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), sorghum (Sorghum sudanense L. x Sorghum bicolor L.) and sudan grass (S. sudanense L.) as second crops) in comparison with four conventional sole cropping systems (SCS) (maize, sunflower, sorghum and sudan grass) with regard to dry matter (DM) yield and soil water under conditions of climate change. We used the agro-ecosystem model HERMES for simulating these variables until the year 2100. The investigated crops sunflower, sorghum and sudan grass were parameterised first for HERMES achieving a satisfying performance. Results showed always higher DM yields per year of DCS compared with SCS. This was mainly caused by yield increases of the first crop winter rye harvested at the stage of milk ripeness. As a winter hardy crop, rye will benefit from increased precipitation and higher temperatures during winter months as well as from extended growth periods with an earlier onset in spring and an increase of growing days. Furthermore, rye is able to use the increased winter humidity for its spring growth in an efficient way. By contrast, model simulations showed that summer crops will be affected by reduced precipitation and higher temperatures during summer month for periods from 2050 onwards with the consequence of reduced yields. This yield reduction was found for all summer crops both in conventional sole crop and in DCS. Preponed harvesting of first crop winter rye as a consequence of earlier onset of growth period in spring under prospective climatic conditions lead to yield decrease, which could not be equalised by preponed sowing of second crops and extension of their growth period. Hence, total annual yield of both crops together decreased. The modification of sowing and harvesting dates as an adaptation strategy requires further research with the use of more holistic simulation models. To summarize, DCS may provide a promising adaptation strategy to effects of climate change with a substantial stabilisation of crop yields.
|
|
|
|
Dumont, B., Vancutsem, F., Seutin, B., Bodson, B., Destain, J. - P., & Destain, M. - F. (2012). Simulation de la croissance du blé à l’aide de modèles écophysiologiques: Synthèse bibliographique des méthodes, potentialités et limitations. Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement, 163, 376–386.
Abstract: Crop models describe the growth and development of a crop interacting with its surrounding agro-environmental conditions (soil, climate and the close conditions of the plant). However, the implementation of such models remains difficult because of the high number of explanatory variables and parameters. It often happens that important discrepancies appear between measured and simulated values. This article aims to highlight the different sources of uncertainty related to the use of crop models, as well as the actual methods that allow a compensation for or, at least, a consideration of these sources of error during analysis of the model results. This article presents a literature review, which firstly synthesises the general mathematical structure of crop models. The main criteria for evaluating crop models are then described. Finally, several methods used for improving models are given. Parameter estimation methods, including frequentist and Bayesian approaches, are presented and data assimilation methods are reviewed.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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: ► We compared nine crop simulation models for spring barley at seven sites in Europe. ► Applying crop models with restricted calibration leads to high uncertainties. ► Multi-crop model mean yield estimates were in good agreement with observations. ► The degree of uncertainty for simulated grain yield of barley was similar to winter wheat. ► We need more suitable data enabling us to verify different processes in the models. 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.
|
|
|
|
van Bussel, L. G. J., Stehfest, E., Siebert, S., Müller, C., & Ewert, F. (2015). Simulation of the phenological development of wheat and maize at the global scale. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 24(9), 1018–1029.
Abstract: AimTo derive location-specific parameters that reflect the geographic differences among cultivars in vernalization requirements, sensitivity to day length (photoperiod) and temperature, which can be used to simulate the phenological development of wheat and maize at the global scale. LocationGlobal. Methods Based on crop calendar observations and literature describing the large-scale patterns of phenological characteristics of cultivars, we developed algorithms to compute location-specific parameters to represent this large-scale pattern. Vernalization requirements were related to the duration and coldness of winter, sensitivity to day length was assumed to be represented by the minimum and maximum day lengths occurring at a location, and sensitivity to temperature was related to temperature conditions during the vegetative development phase of the crop. Results Application of the derived location-specific parameters resulted in high agreement between simulated and observed lengths of the cropping period. Agreement was especially high for wheat, with mean absolute errors of less than 3 weeks. In the main maize cropping regions, cropping periods were over- and underestimated by 0.5-1.5 months. We also found that interannual variability in simulated wheat harvest dates was more realistic when accounting for photoperiod effects. Main conclusions The methodology presented here provides a good basis for modelling the phenological characteristics of cultivars at the global scale. We show that current global patterns of growing season length as described in cropping calendars can be largely reproduced by phenology models if location-specific parameters are derived from temperature and day length indicators. Growing seasons can be modelled more accurately for wheat than for maize, especially in warm regions. Our method for computing parameters for phenology models from temperature and day length offers opportunities to improve the simulation of crop productivity by crop simulation models developed for large spatial areas and for long-term climate impact projections that account for adaptation in the selection of varieties
|
|
