| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–16] |
|
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.
|
|
Kersebaum, K. C., Kollas, C., Bindi, M., Palosuo, T., Wu, L., Sharif, B., et al. (2014). Model inter-comparison on crop rotation effects – an intermediate report. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Data of diverse crop rotations from five locations across Europe were distributed to modelers to investigate the capability of models to handle complex crop rotations and management interactions. Crop rotations comprise various main crops (winter/spring wheat, winter/spring barley, rye, oat, maize, sugar beet, oil seed rape and potatoes) plus several catch crops. The experimental setup of the datasets included treatments such as modified soils, crops exchanged within the rotations, irrigation/rainfed, nitrogen fertilization, residue management, tillage and atmospheric CO2 concentration. 19 modeling teams registered to model either the whole rotation or single crops. Models which are capable to run the whole rotation should provide transient as well as single year simulations with a reset of initial conditions. In the first step only initial soil conditions (water and soil mineral N) of the first year and key phenological stages were provided to the modelers. For calibration, crop yields and biomass were provided for selected years but not for all seasons. In total the combination of treatments and seasons results in 301 years of simulation. Results were analyzed to evaluate the effect of transient simulation versus single-year simulation regarding crop yield, biomass, water and nitrogen balance components. Model results will be evaluated crop-specifically to identify crops with highest uncertainty and potential for model improvement. Full data will be provided to modelers for model-improvement and results will provide insights into model capabilities to reproduce treatments and crops. Further, the question of error propagation along the transient simulation of crop rotations will be addressed.
|
|
Zhao, G., Hoffmann, H., Van Bussel, L., Enders, A., Specka, X., Sosa, C., et al. (2014). Weather data aggregation’s effects on simulation of cropping systems: a model, production system and crop comparison. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Interactions of climate, soil and management practices in cropping systems can be simulated at different scales to provide information for decision making. Low resolution simulation need less effort, but important details could be lost through data aggregation effects (DAEs). This paper aims to provide a general method to assess the DAEs on weather data and the simulation of cropping systems, and further investigate how the DAEs vary with changing crop models, crops, variables and production systems. A 30-year continuous cropping system was simulated for winter wheat and silage maize and potential, water-limited and water-nitrogen-limited production situations. Climate data of 1 km resolution and aggregations to resolutions of 10 to 100 km was used as input for the simulations. The data aggregation narrowed the variation of weather data and DAEs increased with increasingly coarser spatial resolution, causing the loss of hot spots in simulated results. Spatial patterns were similar across different resolutions. Consistent with DAEs on weather data, the DAEs on simulated yield (0 to 1.2 t ha-1 for winter wheat and 0 to 1.7 t ha-1 for silage maize), evapotranspiration (3 to 45 mm yr-1 for winter wheat and 4 to 40 mm yr-1 for silage maize), and water use efficiency (0.02 to 0.25 kg m-3 for winter wheat and 0.04 to 0.4 kg m-3 for silage maize), increased with coarser spatial resolution. Thus, if spatial information is needed for local management decisions, higher resolution is needed to adequately capture the spatial heterogeneity or hot spots in the region.
|
|
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.
|
|
Cammarano, D., Rötter, R. P., Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Wallach, D., Martre, P., et al. (2016). Uncertainty of wheat water use: Simulated patterns and sensitivity to temperature and CO2. Field Crops Research, 198, 80–92.
Abstract: Projected global warming and population growth will reduce future water availability for agriculture. Thus, it is essential to increase the efficiency in using water to ensure crop productivity. Quantifying crop water use (WU; i.e. actual evapotranspiration) is a critical step towards this goal. Here, sixteen wheat simulation models were used to quantify sources of model uncertainty and to estimate the relative changes and variability between models for simulated WU, water use efficiency (WUE, WU per unit of grain dry mass produced), transpiration efficiency (Teff, transpiration per kg of unit of grain yield dry mass produced), grain yield, crop transpiration and soil evaporation at increased temperatures and elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations ([CO2]). The greatest uncertainty in simulating water use, potential evapotranspiration, crop transpiration and soil evaporation was due to differences in how crop transpiration was modelled and accounted for 50% of the total variability among models. The simulation results for the sensitivity to temperature indicated that crop WU will decline with increasing temperature due to reduced growing seasons. The uncertainties in simulated crop WU, and in particularly due to uncertainties in simulating crop transpiration, were greater under conditions of increased temperatures and with high temperatures in combination with elevated atmospheric [CO2] concentrations. Hence the simulation of crop WU, and in particularly crop transpiration under higher temperature, needs to be improved and evaluated with field measurements before models can be used to simulate climate change impacts on future crop water demand.
|