|
|
Nendel, C., Thorburn, P., Melzer, D., Cerri, C. E. P., Claessens, L., Aggarwal, P. K., et al. (2016). Soil nitrogen mineralisation simulated by crop models across different environments and the consequences for model improvement.. Berlin (Germany).
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). A framework for evaluating uncertainty in crop model predictions.. Berlin (Germany).
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Ruane, A. C., Hudson, N. I., Asseng, S., Camarrano, D., Ewert, F., Martre, P., et al. (2016). Multi-wheat-model ensemble responses to interannual climate variability. Env. Model. Softw., 81, 86–101.
Abstract: We compare 27 wheat models’ yield responses to interannual climate variability, analyzed at locations in Argentina, Australia, India, and The Netherlands as part of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Wheat Pilot. Each model simulated 1981-2010 grain yield, and we evaluate results against the interannual variability of growing season temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation. The amount of information used for calibration has only a minor effect on most models’ climate response, and even small multi-model ensembles prove beneficial. Wheat model clusters reveal common characteristics of yield response to climate; however models rarely share the same cluster at all four sites indicating substantial independence. Only a weak relationship (R-2 <= 0.24) was found between the models’ sensitivities to interannual temperature variability and their response to long-term warming, suggesting that additional processes differentiate climate change impacts from observed climate variability analogs and motivating continuing analysis and model development efforts. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Estimating model prediction error: Should you treat predictions as fixed or random. Env. Model. Softw., 84, 529–539.
Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. We compare two criteria of prediction error; MSEPfixed, which evaluates mean squared error of prediction for a model with fixed structure, parameters and inputs, and MSEPuncertain(X), which evaluates mean squared error averaged over the distributions of model structure, inputs and parameters. Comparison of model outputs with data can be used to estimate the former. The latter has a squared bias term, which can be estimated using hindcasts, and a model variance term, which can be estimated from a simulation experiment. The separate contributions to MSEPuncertain(X) can be estimated using a random effects ANOVA. It is argued that MSEPuncertain(X) is the more informative uncertainty criterion, because it is specific to each prediction situation.
|
|
