|
|
Kersebaum, C., Boote, J., Jorgenson, S., Kollas, C., Nendel, C., Wegehenkel, M., et al. (2014). A scheme to evaluate suitability of experimental data for model testing and improvement..
|
|
|
|
Montesino-San Martín, M., Olesen, J. E., & Porter, J. R. (2014). A genotype, environment and management (GxExM) analysis of adaptation in winter wheat to climate change in Denmark. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 187, 1–13.
Abstract: Wheat yields in Europe have shown stagnating trends during the last two decades, partly attributed to climate change. Such developments challenge the needs for increased production, in particular at higher latitudes, to meet increasing global demands and expected productivity reductions at lower latitudes. Climate change projections from three General Circulation Models or GCMs (UKMO-HadGEM1, INM-GM3.0 and CSIRO-Mk3.1) for the A1FI SIZES emission scenario for 2000 to 2100 were downscaled at a northern latitude location (Foulum, Denmark) using LARS-WG5.3. The scenarios accounted for changes in temperature, precipitation and atmospheric CO2 concentration. In addition, three temperature-variability scenarios were included assuming different levels of decreased temperature variability in winter and increased in summer. Crop yield was simulated for the different climate change scenarios by a calibrated version of AFRCWHEAT2 to model several combinations of genotypes (varying in crop growth, development and tolerance to water and nitrogen scarcity) and management (sowing dates and nitrogen fertilization rate). The simulations showed a slight improvement of grain yields (0.3-1.2 Mg ha(-1)) in the medium-term (2030-2050), but not enough to cope with expected increases in demand for food and feed. Optimum management added up to 1.8 Mg ha(-1). Genetic modifications regarding winter wheat crop development exhibit the greatest sensitivity to climate and larger potential for improvement (+3.8 Mg ha(-1)). The results consistently points towards need for cultivars with a longer reproductive phases (2.9-7.5% per 1 degrees C) and lower photoperiod sensitivities. Due to the positive synergies between several genotypic characteristics, multiple-target breeding programmes would be necessary, possibly assisted by model-based assessments of optimal phenotypic characteristics.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., & Rivington, M. (2014). A framework structure to integrate improved methods for uncertainty evaluation, and protocols for methods application (Vol. 3).
|
|
|
|
Refsgaard, J. C., Madsen, H., Andréassian, V., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Davidson, T. A., Drews, M., et al. (2014). A framework for testing the ability of models to project climate change and its impacts. Clim. Change, 122(1-2), 271–282.
Abstract: Models used for climate change impact projections are typically not tested for simulation beyond current climate conditions. Since we have no data truly reflecting future conditions, a key challenge in this respect is to rigorously test models using proxies of future conditions. This paper presents a validation framework and guiding principles applicable across earth science disciplines for testing the capability of models to project future climate change and its impacts. Model test schemes comprising split-sample tests, differential split-sample tests and proxy site tests are discussed in relation to their application for projections by use of single models, ensemble modelling and space-time-substitution and in relation to use of different data from historical time series, paleo data and controlled experiments. We recommend that differential-split sample tests should be performed with best available proxy data in order to build further confidence in model projections.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., & Rivington, M. (2014). A framework for assessing the uncertainty in crop model predictions (Vol. 3).
Abstract: It is of major importance in modeling to understand and quantify the uncertainty in model predictions, both in order to know how much confidence to have in those predictions, and as a first step toward model improvement. Here we show that there are basically three different approaches to evaluating uncertainty, and we explain the advantages and drawbacks of each. This is a necessary first step toward developing protocols for evaluation of uncertainty and so obtaining a clearer picture of the reliability of crop models. No Label
|
|
