|
|
Boote, K. J., Porter, C., Jones, J. W., Thorburn, P. J., Kersebaum, K. C., Hoogenboom, G., et al. (2015). Sentinel site data for crop model improvement – definition and characterization. In J. L. Hatfield, & D. Fleisher (Eds.), (Vol. Advances in Agricultural Systems Modeling (7)). Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA.
|
|
|
|
Rötter, R. P., Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J. W., Hatfield, J. L., et al. (2013). Quantifying Uncertainties in Modeling Crop Water Use under Climate Change..
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Overview paper on comprehensive framework for assessment of error and uncertainty in crop model predictions (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. Several ways of quantifying prediction uncertainty have been explored in the literature, but there have been no studies of how the different approaches are related to one another, and how they are related to some overall measure of prediction uncertainty. Here we show that all the different approaches can be related to two different viewpoints about the model; either the model is treated as a fixed predictor with some average error, or the model can be treated as a random variable with uncertainty in one or more of model structure, model inputs and model parameters. We discuss the differences, and show how mean squared error of prediction can be estimated in both cases. The results can be used to put uncertainty estimates into a more general framework and to relate different uncertainty estimates to one another and to overall prediction uncertainty. This should lead to a better understanding of crop model prediction uncertainty and the underlying causes of that uncertainty. This study was published as (Wallach et al. 2016)
|
|
|
|
Martre, P., Wallach, D., Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., Rötter, R. P., et al. (2015). Multimodel ensembles of wheat growth: many models are better than one. Glob. Chang. Biol., 21(2), 911–925.
Abstract: Crop models of crop growth are increasingly used to quantify the impact of global changes due to climate or crop management. Therefore, accuracy of simulation results is a major concern. Studies with ensembles of crop models can give valuable information about model accuracy and uncertainty, but such studies are difficult to organize and have only recently begun. We report on the largest ensemble study to date, of 27 wheat models tested in four contrasting locations for their accuracy in simulating multiple crop growth and yield variables. The relative error averaged over models was 24-38% for the different end-of-season variables including grain yield (GY) and grain protein concentration (GPC). There was little relation between error of a model for GY or GPC and error for in-season variables. Thus, most models did not arrive at accurate simulations of GY and GPC by accurately simulating preceding growth dynamics. Ensemble simulations, taking either the mean (e-mean) or median (e-median) of simulated values, gave better estimates than any individual model when all variables were considered. Compared to individual models, e-median ranked first in simulating measured GY and third in GPC. The error of e-mean and e-median declined with an increasing number of ensemble members, with little decrease beyond 10 models. We conclude that multimodel ensembles can be used to create new estimators with improved accuracy and consistency in simulating growth dynamics. We argue that these results are applicable to other crop species, and hypothesize that they apply more generally to ecological system models.
|
|
|
|
De Sanctis, G., Roggero, P. P., Seddaiu, G., Orsini, R., Porter, C. H., & Jones, J. W. (2012). Long-term no tillage increased soil organic carbon content of rain-fed cereal systems in a Mediterranean area. European Journal of Agronomy, 40, 18–27.
Abstract: The differential impact on soil organic carbon (SOC) of applying no tillage (NT) compared to conventional tillage (CT, i.e. mouldboard ploughing), along with three rates of nitrogen (N) fertilizer application (0,90 and 180 kg ha(-1) y(-1)), was studied under rain-fed Mediterranean conditions in a long-term experiment based on a durum wheat-maize rotation, in which crop residues were left on the soil (NT) or incorporated (CT). Observed SOC content following 8 and 12 years of continuous treatment application was significantly higher in the top 10 cm of the soil under NT than CT, but it was similar in the 10-40 cm layer. NT grain yields for both maize and durum wheat were below those attained under CT (on average 32% and 14% lower respectively) at a given rate of N fertilizer application. Soil, climate and crop data over 5 years were used to calibrate DSSAT model in order to simulate the impact of the different management practices over a 50-year period. Good agreement was obtained between observed and simulated values for crops grain yield, above-ground biomass and observed SOC values. Results from the simulations showed that under NT the weeds growing during the intercrop fallow period made a significant contribution to the observed SOC increase. When the contribution of the weed fallow was considered, NT significantly increased SOC in the top 40 cm of the soil at an average rate of 0.43, 0.31 and 0.03 t ha(-1) per year, respectively for 180,90 and 0 kg N ha(-1) year(-1), within the simulated 50 years. Under CT, a significant SOC increase was simulated under N180 and a significant decrease when no fertilizer was supplied.
|
|
