| Home | [1–10] << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >> [21–30] |
|
Sándor, R., Barcza, Z., Acutis, M., Doro, L., Hidy, D., Köchy, M., et al. (2016). Multi-model simulation of soil temperature, soil water content and biomass in Euro-Mediterranean grasslands: Uncertainties and ensemble performance. European Journal of Agronomy, .
Abstract: • We simulate biomass, soil water content (SWC) and temperature (ST) in grasslands. • We compare nine models to the multi-model median (MMM) at nine sites. • With model calibration, we obtain satisfactory estimates of ST, less of SWC and biomass. • We observe discrepancies across models in the simulation of grassland processes. • We improve performance with multi-model approach. This study presents results from a major grassland model intercomparison exercise, and highlights the main challenges faced in the implementation of a multi-model ensemble prediction system in grasslands. Nine, independently developed simulation models linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to grassland biogeochemical cycles and production were compared in a simulation of soil water content (SWC) and soil temperature (ST) in the topsoil, and of biomass production. The results were assessed against SWC and ST data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions – Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland – and against yield measurements from the same sites and other experimental grassland sites in Europe and Israel. We present a comparison of model estimates from individual models to the multi-model ensemble (represented by multi-model median: MMM). With calibration (seven out of nine models), the performances were acceptable for weekly-aggregated ST (R² > 0.7 with individual models and >0.8–0.9 with MMM), but less satisfactory with SWC (R² < 0.6 with individual models and < ∼ 0.5 with MMM) and biomass (R² < ∼0.3 with both individual models and MMM). With individual models, maximum biases of about −5 °C for ST, −0.3 m3 m−3 for SWC and 360 g DM m−2 for yield, as well as negative modelling efficiencies and some high relative root mean square errors indicate low model performance, especially for biomass. We also found substantial discrepancies across different models, indicating considerable uncertainties regarding the simulation of grassland processes. The multi-model approach allowed for improved performance, but further progress is strongly needed in the way models represent processes in managed grassland systems.
Keywords: Biomass; Grasslands; Modelling; Multi-model ensemble; Soil processes
Area: LiveM
|
|
Vilvert, E., Lana, M., Zander, P., & Sieber, S. (2018). Multi-model approach for assessing the sunflower food value chain in Tanzania. Agric. Syst., 159, 103–110.
Abstract: Sunflower is one of the major oilseeds produced in Tanzania, but due to insufficient domestic production more than half of the country’s demand is imported. The improvement of the sunflower food value chain (FVC) understanding is important to ensure an increase in the production, availability, and quality of edible oil. In order to analyse causes and propose solutions to increase the production of sunflower oil, a conceptual framework that proposes the combined use of different models to provide insights about the sunflower FVC was developed. This research focus on the identification of agricultural models that can provide a better understanding of the sunflower FVC in Tanzania, especially within the context of food security improvement. A FVC scheme was designed considering the main steps of sunflower production. Thereafter, relevant models were selected and placed along each step of the FVC. As result, the sunflower FVC model in Tanzania is organized in five steps, namely (1) natural resources; (2) crop production; (3) oil processing; (4) trade; and (5) consumption. Step 1 uses environmental indicators to analyse soil parameters on soil-water models (SWAT, LPJmL, APSIM or CroSyst), with outputs providing data for step 2 of the FVC. In the production step, data from step 1, together with other inputs, is used to run crop models (DSSAT, HERMES, MONICA, STICS, EPIC or AquaCrop) that analyse the impact on sunflower yields. Thereafter, outputs from crop models serve as input for bio-economic farm models (FSSIM or MODAM) to estimate production costs and farm income by optimizing resource allocation planning for step 2. In addition, outputs from crop models are used as inputs for macro-economic models (GTAP, MAGNET or MagPie) by adjusting supply functions and environmental impacts within steps 3, 4, and 5. These models simulate supply and demand, including the processing of products to determine prices and trade volumes at market equilibrium. In turn, these data is used by bio-economic farm models to assess sunflower returns for different farm types and agro-environmental conditions. Due to the large variety of models, it is possible to assess significant parts of the FVC, reducing the need to make assumptions, while improving the understanding of the FVC.
|
|
Ferrise, R., Toscano, P., Pasqui, M., Moriondo, M., Primicerio, J., Semenov, M. A., et al. (2015). Monthly-to-seasonal predictions of durum wheat yield over the Mediterranean Basin. Clim. Res., 65, 7–21.
Abstract: Uncertainty in weather conditions for the forthcoming growing season influences farmers’ decisions, based on their experience of the past climate, regarding the reduction of agricultural risk. Early within-season predictions of grain yield can represent a great opportunity for farmers to improve their management decisions and potentially increase yield and reduce potential risk. This study assessed 3 methods of within-season predictions of durum wheat yield at 10 sites across the Mediterranean Basin. To assess the value of within-season predictions, the model SiriusQuality2 was used to calculate wheat yields over a 9 yr period. Initially, the model was run with observed daily weather to obtain the reference yields. Then, yield predictions were calculated at a monthly time step, starting from 6 mo before harvest, by feeding the model with observed weather from the beginning of the growing season until a specific date and then with synthetic weather constructed using the 3 methods, historical, analogue or empirical, until the end of the growing season. The results showed that it is possible to predict durum wheat yield over the Mediterranean Basin with an accuracy of normalized root means squared error of <20%, from 5 to 6 mo earlier for the historical and empirical methods and 3 mo earlier for the analogue method. Overall, the historical method performed better than the others. Nonetheless, the analogue and empirical methods provided better estimations for low-yielding and high-yielding years, thus indicating great potential to provide more accurate predictions for years that deviate from average conditions.
Keywords: yield predictions; seasonal forecasts; analogue forecasts; stochastic weather generator; empirical forecasting models; durum wheat; crop modelling; mediterranean basin; general-circulation model; scale climate indexes; crop yield; grain-yield; forecasts; simulation; region; precipitation; australia; europe
|
|
Gabaldón-Leal, C., Webber, H., Otegui, M. E., Slafer, G. A., Ordonez, R. A., Gaiser, T., et al. (2016). Modelling the impact of heat stress on maize yield formation. Field Crops Research, 198, 226–237.
Abstract: The frequency and intensity of extreme high temperature events are expected to increase with climate change. Higher temperatures near anthesis have a large negative effect on maize (Zea mays, L.) grain yield. While crop growth models are commonly used to assess climate change impacts on maize and other crops, it is only recently that they have accounted for such heat stress effects, despite limited field data availability for model evaluation. There is also increasing awareness but limited testing of the importance of canopy temperature as compared to air temperature for heat stress impact simulations. In this study, four independent irrigated field trials with controlled heating imposed using polyethylene shelters were used to develop and evaluate a heat stress response function in the crop modeling framework SIMPLACE, in which the Lintul5 crop model was combined with a canopy temperature model. A dataset from Argentina with the temperate hybrid Nidera AX 842 MG (RM 119) was used to develop a yield reduction function based on accumulated hourly stress thermal time above a critical temperature of 34 degrees C. A second dataset from Spain with a FAO 700 cultivar was used to evaluate the model with daily weather inputs in two sets of simulations. The first was used to calibrate SIMPLACE for conditions with no heat stress, and the second was used to evaluate SIMPLACE under conditions of heat stress using the reduction factor obtained with the Argentine dataset. Both sets of simulations were conducted twice; with the heat stress function alternatively driven with air and simulated canopy temperature. Grain yield simulated under heat stress conditions improved when canopy temperature was used instead of air temperature (RMSE equal to 175 and 309 g m(-2), respectively). For the irrigated and high radiative conditions, raising the critical threshold temperature for heat stress to 39 degrees C improved yield simulation using air temperature (RMSE: 221 gm(-2)) without the need to simulate canopy temperature (RMSE: 175 gm(-2)). However, this approach of adjusting thresholds is only likely to work in environments where climatic variables and the level of soil water deficit are constant, such as irrigated conditions and are not appropriate for rainfed production conditions. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Heat stress; Maize; Zea mays (L); Crop models; HIGH-TEMPERATURE STRESS; KERNEL NUMBER; CROP GROWTH; GRAIN-YIELD; SIMULATION; CLIMATE; HYBRIDS; SET; VALIDATION; COMPONENTS
|
|
Wu, L., Whitmore, A. P., & Bellocchi, G. (2015). Modelling the impact of environmental changes on grassland systems with SPACSYS. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 37–39.
|