| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–20] |
|
Wallach, D., & Rivington, M. (2014). A framework for assessing the uncertainty in crop model predictions (Vol. 3).
Abstract: It is of major importance in modeling to understand and quantify the uncertainty in model predictions, both in order to know how much confidence to have in those predictions, and as a first step toward model improvement. Here we show that there are basically three different approaches to evaluating uncertainty, and we explain the advantages and drawbacks of each. This is a necessary first step toward developing protocols for evaluation of uncertainty and so obtaining a clearer picture of the reliability of crop models. No Label
|
|
Kersebaum, K., & C,. (2014). Results of uncalibrated model runs available (ROTATIONEFFECTS) (Vol. 3).
Abstract: The study ROTATIONEFFECT aims to compare the output of different models simulating field data sets with multi-year crop rotations including different treatments. Data sets for 5 locations in Europe were distributed to 19 interested modeller groups comprising a total of 201 crop growth seasons. In a first step only minimal information for calibration were provided to the modellers. In total 14 modelling teams sent their “uncalibrated” results as single-year calculations and/or calculations of rotation depending on the capability of the model. 7-10 models were capable to run the rotations as continuous runs. Up to 12 models provided single year simulations of at least one crop. Comparing results of models which provided both single year and continuous runs, show a little lower root mean square error for the continuous rotations runs. Cereal crop yields were generally better simulated than tuber/beet yields. Additionally, the models’ response to various treatments (irrigation/rainfed, nitrogen level, CO2 level, residue management/ tillage, catch crops) were compared to observed differences. First indicators of model performance have been developed and presented at international conferences. No Label
|
|
Bellocchi, G., Rivington, M., & Acutis, M. (2014). Protocol for model evaluation (Vol. 3).
Abstract: This deliverable focuses on the development of methods for model evaluation in order to have unambiguous indications derived from the use of several evaluation metrics. The information about model quality is aggregated into a single indicator using a fuzzy expert system that can be applied to a wide range of model estimates where suitable test data are available. This is a cross-cutting activity between CropM (C1.4) and LiveM (L2.2). No Label
|
|
Kässi, P., Niskanen, O., & Känkänen, H. (2014). Farm level approach to manage grass yield variation in changing climate in Jokioinen and St. Petersburg (Vol. 3).
Abstract: Cattle’s feeding is based on grass silage in Northern Europe, but grass growth is highly dependent on weather conditions. In farms decision making, grass area is usually determined by the variation of yield. To be adequate in every situation, the lowest expected yield level determines the cultivated area. Other way to manage the grass yield risk is to increase silage storage capacity over annual consumption. Variation of grass yield in climate data from years 1961-1990 was compared with 15 different climate scenario models simulating years 2046-2065. A model was developed for evaluating the inadequacy risk in terms of cultivated area and storing capacity. The cost of risk is presented and discussed.In northern Europe a typical farm has storage for roughage consumption of almost one year. In addition, there can be a buffer storage. The extra storage is to be used before and during the harvest season. New harvest will be fed to animals only after the buffer empty. Shortage in the buffer storage is possible to be filled, when the yield exceeds the target level. For risk management, two alternative mechanisms are given: forage buffer and possibility to alter the field area.According to our results, there are no significant adverse effects in the cost of risk and implied farm profitability due to climate change. Selecting the risk management scenario of 30 % grass yield risk turned out to be the least cost solution. No Label
|
|
Lehtonen, H. S., Kässi, P., Korhonen, P., Niskanen, O., Rötter, R., Palosuo, T., et al. (2014). Specific problems and solutions in climate change adaptation in North Savo region (Vol. 3).
Abstract: Crop production for feed dominates land use in North Savo in eastern Finland. The value of dairy and beef production is appr. 70 % of the total value of agricultural production of the region. In climate change adaptation research we are especially interested in dairy and meat sectors, which are directly dependent on the development of productivity of crop production. Climate change implies changes in cereals and forage crop yields and nutritive quality. There are most likely increasing problems and risks related to overwintering and growing periods. Grass silage is mainly self-produced on farms and most often there is no market for silage. Silage production and use are vulnerable to changes in local climate, because lost yield cannot be easily replaced from market. Risks and costs due to increasing inter-annual yield volatility can be reduced by good management practices, such as crop rotation, plant protection, soil improvements and better crop protection against plant diseases.However the profitability of such measures is dependent on market and policy conditions. Nevertheless new cultivars and species, as well as various options for production and risk management, are most likely needed in future climate. Some adaptations may have multiple benefits which however may realize only in medium or long run. It is important to safeguard the most important and obviously needed adaptations, and identify market and socio-economic conditions which inhibit farmers from necessary adaptations and lead to reduced productivity and increased production costs. No Label
|