|
|
Olesen, J. E., Jabloun, M., & Schelde, K. (2014). Reconciling estimates of climate change effects on nitrate leaching from agricultural crops. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Nitrate leaching from agricultural systems constitutes a severe environmental effect in regions with valuable groundwater resources and vulnerable aquatic ecosystems. Therefore cropping systems should in many parts of Europe reduce the amount of nitrate leached from the root zone. Since soil nitrogen transformation and loss processes are highly influenced by climate, including temperature and precipitation, estimates of climate change effects on nitrate leaching is in high demand for evaluating future groundwater and surface water protection policies. Modelling studies using both the FASSET and Daisy models for cereal crops as well as arable crop rotations in Denmark have shown increased nitrate leaching under projected climate change. Sensitivity analyses using these models have shown a higher response to changes in temperature than to precipitation, although in particular precipitation responses differ between soil types. Simulations for crop rotations show that current catch crop management may not be sufficient to maintain low nitrate leaching levels in future. These effects of temperature and precipitation as well as crop management are confirmed in an empirical analysis of nitrate leaching from a long-term cropping system experiment in Denmark. The main uncertainties on climate change effects on future nitrate leaching appears to be related to effects of climate change on soil organic matter and thus on the amount of soil total N available for mineralization as well as the effects of enhanced atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop residue quality and N mineralization.
|
|
|
|
Sharif, B., Olesen, J. E., & Schelde, K. (2014). Statistical learning approach for modelling the effects of climate change on oilseed rape yield. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Statistical learning is a fairly new term referring to a set of supervised and unsupervised modelling and prediction techniques. It is based on traditional statistics but has been highly enhanced inspired by developments in machine learning and data mining. The main focus of statistical learning is to estimate the functions that quantify relations between several parameters and observed responses. These functions are further used for prediction, inference or a combination of both. For a particular case of quantitative responses, regularization techniques in regression are developed to overcome the weaknesses of ordinary least square (OLS) regression in prediction. These new shrinkage methods outperform OLS for prediction, especially in large datasets. In this study, a large dataset of field experiments on winter oilseed rape in Denmark for 22 years (1992 to 2013) was collected. Biweekly climatic data along with sowing date, harvest date, soil type and previous crop are considered as the explanatory variables. Yield of winter oilseed rape is considered as response variable. LASSO and Elastic Nets are the regularization techniques used to estimate the functions. Hold-one-out cross validation method for testing the prediction power reveals that these techniques are much useful in both prediction and inference. Since these techniques are included in recent versions of some software packages (e.g. R), they can be easily implemented by users at any level. The estimated function (model) is further used to predict the oilseed rape yield responses to climate change for several scenarios using representative weather data produced by a weather generator.
|
|
|
|
Yin, X., Olesen, J. E., Wang, M., Kersebaum, K. - C., Chen, H., Baby, S., et al. (2016). Adapting maize production to drought in the Northeast Farming Region of China. European Journal of Agronomy, 77, 47–58.
Abstract: Maize (Zea mays L.) is the most prominent crop in the Northeast Farming Region of China (NFR), and drought has been the largest limitation for maize production in this area during recent decades. The question of how to adapt maize production to drought has received great attention from policy makers, researchers and farmers. In order to evaluate the effects of adaptation strategies against drought and examine the influences of policy supports and farmer households’ characteristics on adopting decisions, a large scale household survey was conducted in five representative maize production counties across NFR. Our survey results indicated that using variety diversification, drought resistant varieties and dibbling irrigation are the three major adaptation strategies against drought in spring, and farmers also adopted changes in sowing time, conservation tillage and mulching to cope with drought in spring. About 20% and 18% of households enhanced irrigation against drought in summer and autumn, respectively. Deep loosening tillage and organic fertilizer are also options for farmers to resist drought in summer. Maize yield was highly dependent on soil qualities, with yields on land of high soil quality approximately 1050 kg/ha and 2400 kg/ha higher than for normal and poor soil conditions, respectively. Using variety diversification and drought resistant varieties can respectively increase maize yield by approximately 150 and 220 kg/ha under drought. Conservation tillage increased maize yield by 438–459 kg/ha in drought years. Irrigation improved maize yield by 419–435 kg/ha and 444–463 kg/ha against drought in summer and autumn, respectively. Offering information service, financial and technical support can greatly increase the use of adaptation strategies for farmers to cope with drought. However, only 46% of households received information service, 43% of households received financial support, and 26% of households received technical support against drought from the local government. The maize acreage and the irrigation access are the major factors that influenced farmers’ decisions to apply adaptation strategies to cope with drought in each season, but only 25% of households have access to irrigation. This indicates the need for enhanced public support for farmers to better cope with drought in maize production, particularly through improving access to irrigation.
|
|
|
|
Webber, H., Martre, P., Asseng, S., Kimball, B., White, J., Ottman, M., et al. (2017). Canopy temperature for simulation of heat stress in irrigated wheat in a semi-arid environment: A multi-model comparison. Field Crops Research, 202, 21–35.
Abstract: Even brief periods of high temperatures occurring around flowering and during grain filling can severely reduce grain yield in cereals. Recently, ecophysiological and crop models have begun to represent such phenomena. Most models use air temperature (Tair) in their heat stress responses despite evidence that crop canopy temperature (Tc) better explains grain yield losses. Tc can deviate significantly from Tair based on climatic factors and the crop water status. The broad objective of this study was to evaluate whether simulation of Tc improves the ability of crop models to simulate heat stress impacts on wheat under irrigated conditions. Nine process-based models, each using one of three broad approaches (empirical, EMP; energy balance assuming neutral atmospheric stability, EBN; and energy balance correcting for the atmospheric stability conditions, EBSC) to simulate Tc, simulated grain yield under a range of temperature conditions. The models varied widely in their ability to reproduce the measured Tc with the commonly used EBN models performing much worse than either EMP or EBSC. Use of Tc to account for heat stress effects did improve simulations compared to using only Tair to a relatively minor extent, but the models that additionally use Tc on various other processes as well did not have better yield simulations. Models that simulated yield well under heat stress had varying skill in simulating Tc. For example, the EBN models had very poor simulations of Tc but performed very well in simulating grain yield. These results highlight the need to more systematically understand and model heat stress events in wheat.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
