|
|
Cammarano, D., Rötter, P., Ewert, F., Palosuo, T., Bindi, M., Kersebaum, K. C., et al. (2013). Challenges for Agro-Ecosystem Modelling in Climate Change Risk Assessment for major European Crops and Farming systems. (pp. 555–564).
|
|
|
|
Patil, R. H., Laegdsmand, M., Olesen, J. E., & Porter, J. R. (2014). Soil temperature manipulation to study global warming effects in arable land: performance of buried heating-cable method. Environment and Ecology Research, 1(4), 196–204.
Abstract: Buried heating-cable method for manipulating soil temperature was designed and tested its performance in large concrete lysimeters grown with the wheat crop in Denmark. Soil temperature in heated plots was elevated by 5℃ compared with that in control by burying heating-cable at 0.1 m depth in a plough layer. Temperature sensors were placed at 0.05, 0.1 and 0.25 m depths in soil, and 0.1 m above the soil surface in all plots, which were connected to an automated data logger. Soil-warming setup was able to maintain a mean seasonal temperature difference of 5.0 ± 0.005℃ between heated and control plots at 0.1 m depth while the mean seasonal rise in soil temperature in the top 0.25 m depth (plough layer) was 3℃. Soil temperature in control plots froze (≤ 0℃) for 15 and 13 days respectively at 0.05 and 0.1 m depths while it did not in heated plots during the coldest period (Nov-Apr). This study clearly showed the efficacy of buried heating-cable technique in simulating soil temperature, and thus offers a simple, effective and alternative technique to study soil biogeochemical processes under warmer climates. This technique, however, decouples below-ground soil responses from that of above-ground vegetation response as this method heats only the soil. Therefore, using infrared heaters seems to represent natural climate warming (both air and soil) much more closely and may be used for future climate manipulation field studies.
|
|
|
|
Salo, T. J., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. C., Nendel, C., Angulo, C., Ewert, F., et al. (2016). Comparing the performance of 11 crop simulation models in predicting yield response to nitrogen fertilization. J. Agric. Sci., 154(7), 1218–1240.
Abstract: Eleven widely used crop simulation models (APSIM, CERES, CROPSYST, COUP, DAISY, EPIC, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) were tested using spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) data set under varying nitrogen (N) fertilizer rates from three experimental years in the boreal climate of Jokioinen, Finland. This is the largest standardized crop model inter-comparison under different levels of N supply to date. The models were calibrated using data from 2002 and 2008, of which 2008 included six N rates ranging from 0 to 150 kg N/ha. Calibration data consisted of weather, soil, phenology, leaf area index (LAI) and yield observations. The models were then tested against new data for 2009 and their performance was assessed and compared with both the two calibration years and the test year. For the calibration period, root mean square error between measurements and simulated grain dry matter yields ranged from 170 to 870 kg/ha. During the test year 2009, most models failed to accurately reproduce the observed low yield without N fertilizer as well as the steep yield response to N applications. The multi-model predictions were closer to observations than most single-model predictions, but multi-model mean could not correct systematic errors in model simulations. Variation in soil N mineralization and LAI development due to differences in weather not captured by the models most likely was the main reason for their unsatisfactory performance. This suggests the need for model improvement in soil N mineralization as a function of soil temperature and moisture. Furthermore, specific weather event impacts such as low temperatures after emergence in 2009, tending to enhance tillering, and a high precipitation event just before harvest in 2008, causing possible yield penalties, were not captured by any of the models compared in the current study.
|
|
|
|
Yin, X. G., Olesen, J. E., Wang, M., Öztürk, I., & Chen, F. (2016). Climate effects on crop yields in the Northeast Farming Region of China during 1961–2010. J. Agric. Sci., 154(07), 1190–1208.
Abstract: Crop production in the Northeast Farming Region of China (NFR) is affected considerably by variation in climatic conditions. Data on crop yield and weather conditions from a number of agro-meteorological stations in NFR were used in a mixed linear model to evaluate the impacts of climatic variables on the yield of maize (Zea mays L.), rice (Oryza sativa L.), soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) and spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in different crop growth phases. The crop growing season was divided into three growth phases based on the average crop phenological dates from records covering 1981 and 2010 at each station, comprising pre-flowering (from sowing to just prior to flowering), flowering (20 days around flowering) and post-flowering (10 days after flowering to maturity). The climatic variables were mean minimum temperature, thermal time (which is used to indicate changes in the length of growth cycles), average daily solar radiation, accumulated precipitation, aridity index (which is used to assess drought stress) and heat degree-days index (HDD) (which is used to indicate heat stress) were calculated for each growth phase and year. Over the 1961–2010 period, the minimum temperature increased significantly in each crop growth phase, the thermal time increased significantly in the pre-flowering phase of each crop and in the post-flowering phases of maize, rice and soybean, and HDD increased significantly in the pre-flowering phase of soybean and wheat. Average solar radiation decreased significantly in the pre-flowering phase of all four crops and in the flowering phase of soybean and wheat. Precipitation increased during the pre-flowering phase leading to less aridity, whereas reduced precipitation in the flowering and post-flowering phases enhanced aridity. Statistical analyses indicated that higher minimum temperature was beneficial for maize, rice and soybean yields, whereas increased temperature reduced wheat yield. Higher solar radiation in the pre-flowering phase was beneficial for maize yield, in the post-flowering phase for wheat yield, whereas higher solar radiation in the flowering phase reduced rice yield. Increased aridity in the pre-flowering and flowering phases severely reduced maize yield, higher aridity in the flowering and post-flowering phases reduced rice yield, and aridity in all growth phases reduced soybean and wheat yields. Higher HDD in all growth phases reduced maize and soybean yield and HDD in the pre-flowering phase reduced rice yield. Such effects suggest that projected future climate change may have marked effects on crop yield through effects of several climatic variables, calling for adaptation measures such as breeding and changes in crop, soil and agricultural water management.
|
|
|
|
Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J. W., Hatfield, J. L., Ruane, A. C., et al. (2013). Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change, 3(9), 827–832.
Abstract: Projections of climate change impacts on crop yields are inherently uncertain(1). Uncertainty is often quantified when projecting future greenhouse gas emissions and their influence on climate(2). However, multi-model uncertainty analysis of crop responses to climate change is rare because systematic and objective comparisons among process-based crop simulation models(1,3) are difficult(4). Here we present the largest standardized model intercomparison for climate change impacts so far. We found that individual crop models are able to simulate measured wheat grain yields accurately under a range of environments, particularly if the input information is sufficient. However, simulated climate change impacts vary across models owing to differences in model structures and parameter values. A greater proportion of the uncertainty in climate change impact projections was due to variations among crop models than to variations among downscaled general circulation models. Uncertainties in simulated impacts increased with CO2 concentrations and associated warming. These impact uncertainties can be reduced by improving temperature and CO2 relationships in models and better quantified through use of multi-model ensembles. Less uncertainty in describing how climate change may affect agricultural productivity will aid adaptation strategy development and policymaking.
|
|
