|
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Ewert, F.; Rötter, R.P.; Bindi, M.; Webber, H.; Trnka, M.; Kersebaum, K.; Christian,; Olesen, J.E.; Van Ittersum, M.K.; Janssen, S.; Rivington, M.; Semenov, M.A.; Wallach, D.; Porter, J.R.; Stewart, D.; Verhagen, J.; Gaiser, T.; Palosuo, T.; Tao, F.; Nendel, C.; Roggero, P.P.; Bartošová, L.; Asseng, S. |
|
|
Title |
Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change |
Type |
Report |
|
Year |
2015 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
|
Volume |
6 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
D-C0.3 |
|
|
Keywords |
|
|
|
Abstract |
The complexity of risks posed by climate change and possible adaptations for crop production has called for integrated assessment and modelling (IAM) approaches linking biophysical and economic models. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the present state of crop modelling to assess climate change risks to food production and to which extent crop models comply with IAM demands. Considerable progress has been made in modelling effects of climate variables, where crop models best satisfy IAM demands. Demands are partly satisfied for simulating commonly required assessment variables. However, progress on the number of simulated crops, uncertainty propagation related to model parameters and structure, adaptations and scaling are less advanced and lagging behind IAM demands. The limitations are considered substantial and apply to a different extent to all crop models. Overcoming these limitations will require joint efforts, and consideration of novel modelling approaches. No Label |
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2089 |
|
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
|
Author |
Fronzek, S.; Pirttioja, N.; Carter, T.R.; Bindi, M.; Hoffmann, H.; Palosuo, T.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Tao, F.; Trnka, M.; Acutis, M.; Asseng, S.; Baranowski, P.; Basso, B.; Bodin, P.; Buis, S.; Cammarano, D.; Deligios, P.; Destain, M.-F.; Dumont, B.; Ewert, F.; Ferrise, R.; François, L.; Gaiser, T.; Hlavinka, P.; Jacquemin, I.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Kollas, C.; Krzyszczak, J.; Lorite, I.J.; Minet, J.; Minguez, M.I.; Montesino, M.; Moriondo, M.; Müller, C.; Nendel, C.; Öztürk, I.; Perego, A.; Rodríguez, A.; Ruane, A.C.; Ruget, F.; Sanna, M.; Semenov, M.A.; Slawinsky, C.; Stratonovitch, P.; Supit, I.; Waha, K.; Wang, E.; Wu, L.; Zhao, Z.; Rötter, R.P. |
|
|
Title |
Classifying multi-model wheat yield impact response surfaces showing sensitivity to temperature and precipitation change |
Type |
Report |
|
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
|
Volume |
10 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
C4.3-D1 |
|
|
Keywords |
|
|
|
Abstract |
Crop growth simulation models can differ greatly in their treatment of key processes and hence in their response to environmental conditions. Here, we used an ensemble of 26 process-based wheat models applied at sites across a European transect to compare their sensitivity to changes in temperature (−2 to +9°C) and precipitation (−50 to +50%). Model results were analysed by plotting them as impact response surfaces (IRSs), classifying the IRS patterns of individual model simulations, describing these classes and analysing factors that may explain the major differences in model responses. The model ensemble was used to simulate yields of winter and spring wheat at sites in Finland, Germany and Spain. Results were plotted as IRSs that show changes in yields relative to the baseline with respect to temperature and precipitation. IRSs of 30-year means and selected extreme years were classified using two approaches describing their pattern. The expert diagnostic approach (EDA) combines two aspects of IRS patterns: location of the maximum yield (nine classes, Figure 1) and strength of the yield response with respect to climate (four classes), resulting in a total of 36 combined classes defined using criteria pre-specified by experts. The statistical diagnostic approach (SDA) groups IRSs by comparing their pattern and magnitude, without attempting to interpret these features. It applies a hierarchical clustering method, grouping response patterns using a distance metric that combines the spatial correlation and Euclidian distance between IRS pairs. The two approaches were used to investigate whether different patterns of yield response could be related to different properties of the crop models, specifically their genealogy, calibration and process description. Although no single model property across a large model ensemble was found to explain the integrated yield response to temperature and precipitation perturbations, the application of the EDA and SDA approaches revealed their capability to distinguish: (i) stronger yield responses to precipitation for winter wheat than spring wheat; (ii) differing strengths of response to climate changes for years with anomalous weather conditions compared to period-average conditions; (iii) the influence of site conditions on yield patterns; (iv) similarities in IRS patterns among models with related genealogy; (v) similarities in IRS patterns for models with simpler process descriptions of root growth and water uptake compared to those with more complex descriptions; and (vi) a closer correspondence of IRS patterns in models using partitioning schemes to represent yield formation than in those using a harvest index. Such results can inform future crop modelling studies that seek to exploit the diversity of multi-model ensembles, by distinguishing ensemble members that span a wide range of responses as well as those that display implausible behaviour or strong mutual similarities. The full manuscript of this study is currently under revision (Fronzek et al. 2017). |
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
CropM |
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4956 |
|
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
|
Author |
Wallach, D.; Thorburn, P.; Asseng, S.; Challinor, A.J.; Ewert, F.; Jones, J.W.; Rötter, R.; Ruane, A. |
|
|
Title |
Overview paper on comprehensive framework for assessment of error and uncertainty in crop model predictions |
Type |
Report |
|
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
|
Volume |
8 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
C4.1-D |
|
|
Keywords |
MACSUR_ACK; CropM |
|
|
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. Several ways of quantifying prediction uncertainty have been explored in the literature, but there have been no studies of how the different approaches are related to one another, and how they are related to some overall measure of prediction uncertainty. Here we show that all the different approaches can be related to two different viewpoints about the model; either the model is treated as a fixed predictor with some average error, or the model can be treated as a random variable with uncertainty in one or more of model structure, model inputs and model parameters. We discuss the differences, and show how mean squared error of prediction can be estimated in both cases. The results can be used to put uncertainty estimates into a more general framework and to relate different uncertainty estimates to one another and to overall prediction uncertainty. This should lead to a better understanding of crop model prediction uncertainty and the underlying causes of that uncertainty. This study was published as (Wallach et al. 2016) |
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
MA @ office @ |
Serial |
2954 |
|
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
|
Author |
Wallach, D.; Thorburn, P.; Asseng, S.; Challinor, A.J.; Ewert, F.; Jones, J.W.; Rötter, R.; Ruane, A. |
|
|
Title |
Estimating model prediction error: Should you treat predictions as fixed or random |
Type |
Journal Article |
|
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Environmental Modelling & Software |
Abbreviated Journal |
Env. Model. Softw. |
|
|
Volume |
84 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
529-539 |
|
|
Keywords |
Crop model; Uncertainty; Prediction error; Parameter uncertainty; Input uncertainty; Model structure uncertainty |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
1364-8152 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4773 |
|
Permanent link to this record |
|
|
|
|
Author |
Ruane, A.C.; Hudson, N.I.; Asseng, S.; Camarrano, D.; Ewert, F.; Martre, P.; Boote, K.J.; Thorburn, P.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Angulo, C.; Basso, B.; Bertuzzi, P.; Biernath, C.; Brisson, N.; Challinor, &rew J.; Doltra, J.; Gayler, S.; Goldberg, R.; Grant, R.F.; Heng, L.; Hooker, J.; Hunt, L.A.; Ingwersen, J.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Kumar, S.N.; Müller, C.; Nendel, C.; O’Leary, G.; Olesen, J.E.; Osborne, T.M.; Palosuo, T.; Priesack, E.; Ripoche, D.; Rötter, R.P.; Semenov, M.A.; Shcherbak, I.; Steduto, P.; Stöckle, C.O.; Stratonovitch, P.; Streck, T.; Supit, I.; Tao, F.; Travasso, M.; Waha, K.; Wallach, D.; White, J.W.; Wolf, J. |
|
|
Title |
Multi-wheat-model ensemble responses to interannual climate variability |
Type |
Journal Article |
|
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Environmental Modelling & Software |
Abbreviated Journal |
Env. Model. Softw. |
|
|
Volume |
81 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
86-101 |
|
|
Keywords |
Crop modeling; Uncertainty; Multi-model ensemble; Wheat; AgMIP; Climate; impacts; Temperature; Precipitation; lnterannual variability; simulation-model; crop model; nitrogen dynamics; winter-wheat; large-area; systems simulation; farming systems; yield response; growth; water |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
|
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
|
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
|
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
|
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
|
ISSN |
1364-8152 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
|
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
|
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
|
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4769 |
|
Permanent link to this record |