|
|
Zhao, G., Hoffmann, H., Yeluripati, J., Xenia, S., Nendel, C., Coucheney, E., et al. (2016). Evaluating the precision of eight spatial sampling schemes in estimating regional means of simulated yield for two crops. Env. Model. Softw., 80, 100–112.
Abstract: We compared the precision of simple random sampling (SimRS) and seven types of stratified random sampling (StrRS) schemes in estimating regional mean of water-limited yields for two crops (winter wheat and silage maize) that were simulated by fourteen crop models. We found that the precision gains of StrRS varied considerably across stratification methods and crop models. Precision gains for compact geographical stratification were positive, stable and consistent across crop models. Stratification with soil water holding capacity had very high precision gains for twelve models, but resulted in negative gains for two models. Increasing the sample size monotonously decreased the sampling errors for all the sampling schemes. We conclude that compact geographical stratification can modestly but consistently improve the precision in estimating regional mean yields. Using the most influential environmental variable for stratification can notably improve the sampling precision, especially when the sensitivity behavior of a crop model is known.
|
|
|
|
Sandor, R., Ehrhardt, F., Grace, P., Recous, S., Smith, P., Snow, V., et al. (2020). Ensemble modelling of carbon fluxes in grasslands and croplands. Field Crops Research, 252, 107791.
Abstract: Croplands and grasslands are agricultural systems that contribute to land–atmosphere exchanges of carbon (C). We evaluated and compared gross primary production (GPP), ecosystem respiration (RECO), net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO2, and two derived outputs – C use efficiency (CUE=-NEE/GPP) and C emission intensity (IntC= -NEE/Offtake [grazed or harvested biomass]). The outputs came from 23 models (11 crop-specific, eight grassland-specific, and four models covering both systems) at three cropping sites over several rotations with spring and winter cereals, soybean and rapeseed in Canada, France and India, and two temperate permanent grasslands in France and the United Kingdom. The models were run independently over multi-year simulation periods in five stages (S), either blind with no calibration and initialization data (S1), using historical management and climate for initialization (S2), calibrated against plant data (S3), plant and soil data together (S4), or with the addition of C and N fluxes (S5). Here, we provide a framework to address methodological uncertainties and contextualize results. Most of the models overestimated or underestimated the C fluxes observed during the growing seasons (or the whole years for grasslands), with substantial differences between models. For each simulated variable, changes in the multi-model median (MMM) from S1 to S5 was used as a descriptor of the ensemble performance. Overall, the greatest improvements (MMM approaching the mean of observations) were achieved at S3 or higher calibration stages. For instance, grassland GPP MMM was equal to 1632 g C m−2 yr-1 (S5) while the observed mean was equal to 1763 m-2 yr-1 (average for two sites). Nash-Sutcliffe modelling efficiency coefficients indicated that MMM outperformed individual models in 92.3 % of cases. Our study suggests a cautious use of large-scale, multi-model ensembles to estimate C fluxes in agricultural sites if some site-specific plant and soil observations are available for model calibration. The further development of crop/grassland ensemble modelling will hinge upon the interpretation of results in light of the way models represent the processes underlying C fluxes in complex agricultural systems (grassland and crop rotations including fallow periods).
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann, H., Zhao, G., Constantin, J., Raynal, H., Wallach, D., Coucheney, E., et al. (2015). Effects of soil and climate input data aggregation on modelling regional crop yields. MACSUR Science Conference.
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann, H., Zhao, G., Van Bussel, L. G. J., Enders, A., Specka, X., Sosa, C., et al. (2014). Effects of climate input data aggregation on modelling regional crop yields. CropM International Symposium and Workshop.
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann, H., Zhao, G., Van Bussel, L., Enders, A., Specka, X., Sosa, C., et al. (2014). Effects of climate input data aggregation on modelling regional crop yields. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Crop models can be sensitive to climate input data aggregation and this response may differ among models. This should be considered when applying field-scale models for assessment of climate change impacts on larger spatial scales or when coupling models across scales. In order to evaluate these effects systematically, an ensemble of ten crop models was run with climate input data on different spatial aggregations ranging from 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 km horizontal resolution for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Models were minimally calibrated to typical sowing and harvest dates, and crop yields observed in the region, subsequently simulating potential, water-limited and nitrogen-limited production of winter wheat and silage maize for 1982-2011. Outputs were analysed for 19 variables (yield, evapotranspiration, soil organic carbon, etc.). In this study the sensitivity of the individual models and the model ensemble in response to input data aggregation is assessed for crop yield. Results show that the mean yield of the region calculated from climate time series of 1 km horizontal resolution changes only little when using climate input data of higher aggregation levels for most models. However, yield frequency distributions change with aggregation, resembling observed data better with increasing resolution. With few exceptions, these results apply to the two crops and three production situations (potential, water-, nitrogen-limited) and across models including the model ensemble, regardless of differences among models in simulated yield levels and spatial yield patterns. Results of this study improve the confidence of using crop models at varying scales.
|
|
