|
|
Siebert, S., Ewert, F., Rezaei, E. E., Kage, H., & Grass, R. (2014). Impact of heat stress on crop yield-on the importance of considering canopy temperature. Environ. Res. Lett., 9(4).
Abstract: Increasing crop productivity while simultaneously reducing the environmental footprint of crop production is considered a major challenge for the coming decades. Even short episodes of heat stress can reduce crop yield considerably causing low resource use efficiency. Studies on the impact of heat stress on crop yields over larger regions generally rely on temperatures measured by standard weather stations at 2 m height. Canopy temperatures measured in this study in field plots of rye were up to 7 degrees C higher than air temperature measured at typical weather station height with the differences in temperatures controlled by soil moisture contents. Relationships between heat stress and grain number derived from controlled environment studies were only confirmed under field conditions when canopy temperature was used to calculate stress thermal time. By using hourly mean temperatures measured by 78 weather stations located across Germany for the period 1994-2009 it is estimated, that mean yield declines in wheat due to heat stress during flowering were 0.7% when temperatures are measured at 2 m height, but yield declines increase to 22% for temperatures measured at the ground. These results suggest that canopy temperature should be simulated or estimated to reduce uncertainty in assessing heat stress impacts on crop yield.
|
|
|
|
Thornton, P., & Ewert, F. (2014). Making the most of climate impacts ensembles (vol 4, pg 77, 2014) – Correction. Nat. Clim. Change, 4(3), 166.
|
|
|
|
Siebert, S., & Ewert, F. (2014). Future crop production threatened by extreme heat. Environ. Res. Lett., 9(4).
Abstract: Heat is considered to be a major stress limiting crop growth and yields. While important findings on the impact of heat on crop yield have been made based on experiments in controlled environments, little is known about the effects under field conditions at larger scales. The study of Deryng et al (2014 Global crop yield response to extreme heat stress under multiple climate change futures Environ. Res. Lett. 9 034011), analysing the impact of heat stress on maize, spring wheat and soya bean under climate change, represents an important contribution to this emerging research field. Uncertainties in the occurrence of heat stress under field conditions, plant responses to heat and appropriate adaptation measures still need further investigation.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
