|
Virkajärvi, P., Korhonen, P., Bellocchi, G., Curnel, Y., Wu, L., Jégo, G., et al. (2016). Modelling responses of forages to climate change with a focus on nutritive value. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 227–228.
|
|
Van Oijen, M., Cameron, D., Levy, P. E., & Preston, R. (2017). Correcting errors from spatial upscaling of nonlinear greenhouse gas flux models. Environmental Modelling & Software, 94, 157–165.
|
Hjelkrem, A. - G. R., Höglind, M., van Oijen, M., Schellberg, J., Gaiser, T., & Ewert, F. (2017). Sensitivity analysis and Bayesian calibration for testing robustness of the BASGRA model in different environments. Ecol. Model., 359, 80–91.
Abstract: Highlights • The parameters to be fixed were consistent across sites. • Model calibration must be performed separately for each specific case. • Possible to reduce model parameters from 66 to 45. • Strong model reductions must be avoided. • The error term for the training data were characterised by timing (phase shift). Abstract Proper parameterisation and quantification of model uncertainty are two essential tasks in improvement and assessment of model performance. Bayesian calibration is a method that combines both tasks by quantifying probability distributions for model parameters and outputs. However, the method is rarely applied to complex models because of its high computational demand when used with high-dimensional parameter spaces. We therefore combined Bayesian calibration with sensitivity analysis, using the screening method by Morris (1991), in order to reduce model complexity by fixing parameters to which model output was only weakly sensitive to a nominal value. Further, the robustness of the model with respect to reduction in the number of free parameters were examined according to model discrepancy and output uncertainty. The process-based grassland model BASGRA was examined in the present study on two sites in Norway and in Germany, for two grass species (Phleum pratense and Arrhenatherum elatius). According to this study, a reduction of free model parameters from 66 to 45 was possible. The sensitivity analysis showed that the parameters to be fixed were consistent across sites (which differed in climate and soil conditions), while model calibration had to be performed separately for each combination of site and species. The output uncertainty decreased slightly, but still covered the field observations of aboveground biomass. Considering the training data, the mean square error for both the 66 and the 45 parameter model was dominated by errors in timing (phase shift), whereas no general pattern was found in errors when using the validation data. Stronger model reduction should be avoided, as the error term increased and output uncertainty was underestimated.
|
Korhonen, P., Palosuo, T., Persson, T., Höglind, M., Jego, G., Van Oijen, M., et al. (2018). Modelling grass yields in northern climates – a comparison of three growth models for timothy. Field Crops Research, 224, 37–47.
Abstract: During the past few years, several studies have compared the performance of crop simulation models to assess the uncertainties in model-based climate change impact assessments and other modelling studies. Many of these studies have concentrated on cereal crops, while fewer model comparisons have been conducted for grasses. We compared the predictions for timothy grass (Phleum pratertse L.) yields for first and second cuts along with the dynamics of above-ground biomass for the grass simulation models BASGRA and CATIMO, and the soil -crop model STICS. The models were calibrated and evaluated using field data from seven sites across Northern Europe and Canada with different climates, soil conditions and management practices. Altogether the models were compared using data on timothy grass from 33 combinations of sites, cultivars and management regimes. Model performances with two calibration approaches, cultivar-specific and generic calibrations, were compared. All the models studied estimated the dynamics of above-ground biomass and the leaf area index satisfactorily, but tended to underestimate the first cut yield. Cultivar-specific calibration resulted in more accurate first cut yield predictions than the generic calibration achieving root mean square errors approximately one third lower for the cultivar-specific calibration. For the second cut, the difference between the calibration methods was small. The results indicate that detailed soil process descriptions improved the overall model performance and the model responses to management, such as nitrogen applications. The results also suggest that taking the genetic variability into account between cultivars of timothy grass also improves the yield estimates. Calibrations using both spring and summer growth data simultaneously revealed that processes determining the growth in these two periods require further attention in model development.
|
Van Oijen, M. (2015). Methods for risk analysis and spatial upscaling of process-based models: Experiences from projects Carbo-Extreme and GREENHOUSE (Vol. 5).
Abstract: In the recently finished EU-funded project Carbo-Extreme, we developed a simple probabilistic method for quantifying vulnerabilities and risks to ecosystems (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/015032). The method defines risk as expected loss due to environmental hazards, and shows how such risk can be calculated as the product of ecosystem vulnerability and hazard probability. The method was used with six different vegetation models to estimate current and future drought risks for crops, grasslands and forests across Europe (http://www.biogeosciences.net/11/6357/2014/bg-11-6357-2014.html).In the still ongoing UK-funded project GREENHOUSE, the focus is on spatial upscaling of local measurements and model predictions of greenhouse gas emissions to wider regions. As part of this work, we are comparing different model upscaling methods – ranging from naive input aggregation to geostatistics – and quantify the uncertainties associated with the upscaling. This work builds on an earlier inventory of model upscaling methods that was produced in a collaboration of CEH-Edinburgh and the University of Bonn (https://www.stat.aau.at/Tagungen/statgis/2009/StatGIS2009Van%20Oijen1.pdf). Here we show a comparison of the methods using model predictions for the border region of England and Scotland. No Label
|
