|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Persson, T., Höglind, M., Gustavsson, A. - M., Halling, M., Jauhiainen, L., Niemeläinen, O., et al. (2014). Evaluation of the LINGRA timothy model under Nordic conditions. Field Crops Research, 161, 87–97.
Abstract: Simulation models are frequently applied to determine the production potential of forage grasses under various scenarios, including climate change. Thorough calibrations and evaluations of forage grass models can help improve their applicability. This study evaluated the ability of the Light Interception and Utilization Simulator-GRAss (LINGRA) model to predict biomass yield of timothy (Phleum pratense L. cv. Grindstad) in the Nordic countries. Variety trial data for the first and second year after establishment were obtained for seven locations: Jokioinen, Finland (60 degrees 48 ‘ N; 23 degrees 29 ‘ E), Maaninka, Finland (63 degrees 09 ‘ N; 27 degrees 18 ‘ E), Korpa, Iceland (64 degrees 09 ‘ N; 21 degrees 45 ‘ W), Srheim, Norway (58 degrees 41 ‘ N; 5 degrees 39 ‘ E), Lillerud, Sweden (59 degrees 24’ N; 13 degrees 16 ‘ E), Ostersund, Sweden (63 degrees 15 ‘ N; 14 degrees 34 ‘ E) and Ulna Sweden (63 degrees 49 ‘ N; 20 degrees 13 ‘ E) from 1992 to 2012. Two calibrations of the LINGRA model were carried out using Bayesian techniques. In the first of these (SRrheim calibration), data on biomass yield and underlying variables obtained from independent field trials at Srheim were used. In the second (Nordic calibration), biomass data from the other locations were used as well. The model was validated against the remaining set of biomass yields from all locations not included in the Nordic calibration. The observed total seasonal yield the first and second year after establishment was 913 and 991 g DM m(-2) respectively on average across the locations. The corresponding average simulated yield after the Srheim calibration was 1044 (root mean square error (RMSE) 258) and 1112 g DM m(-2) (RMSE 312), respectively. After the Nordic calibration, the simulated average total seasonal yield was 863 (RMSE 242) the first year and 927 g DM m(-2) (RMSE 271) the second year after establishment. The differences between the observed and simulated first cut yield followed the same patterns, whereas the prediction accuracy for second cut yield did not differ substantially between the calibration approaches.Using the parameter set from the Nordic region decreased the model predictability at Srheim compared with only using model parameters derived from this location. These results show that using biomass data from several locations, instead of only one specific location, in the calibration of the LINGRA model improved the overall prediction accuracy of first cut dry matter yield and total seasonal dry matter yield across an environmentally heterogeneous region. To further analyse the usefulness of including multi-site data in forage grass model calibrations, other forage grass models could be evaluated against the same dataset.
|
|
|
|
Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. - C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., et al. (2012). Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models. Field Crops Research, 133, 23–36.
Abstract: ► We compared nine crop simulation models for spring barley at seven sites in Europe. ► Applying crop models with restricted calibration leads to high uncertainties. ► Multi-crop model mean yield estimates were in good agreement with observations. ► The degree of uncertainty for simulated grain yield of barley was similar to winter wheat. ► We need more suitable data enabling us to verify different processes in the models. In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction.
|
|
|
|
Kipling, R. P., Topp, C. F. E., Bannink, A., Bartley, D. J., Blanco-Penedo, I., Cortignani, R., et al. (2019). To what extent is climate change adaptation a novel challenge for agricultural modellers. Env. Model. Softw., 120, Unsp 104492.
Abstract: Modelling is key to adapting agriculture to climate change (CC), facilitating evaluation of the impacts and efficacy of adaptation measures, and the design of optimal strategies. Although there are many challenges to modelling agricultural CC adaptation, it is unclear whether these are novel or, whether adaptation merely adds new motivations to old challenges. Here, qualitative analysis of modellers’ views revealed three categories of challenge: Content, Use, and Capacity. Triangulation of findings with reviews of agricultural modelling and Climate Change Risk Assessment was then used to highlight challenges specific to modelling adaptation. These were refined through literature review, focussing attention on how the progressive nature of CC affects the role and impact of modelling. Specific challenges identified were: Scope of adaptations modelled, Information on future adaptation, Collaboration to tackle novel challenges, Optimisation under progressive change with thresholds, and Responsibility given the sensitivity of future outcomes to initial choices under progressive change.
|
|
|
|
Grosz, B., Dechow, R., Gebbert, S., Hoffmann, H., Zhao, G., Constantin, J., et al. (2017). The implication of input data aggregation on up-scaling soil organic carbon changes. Env. Model. Softw., 96, 361–377.
Abstract: In up-scaling studies, model input data aggregation is a common method to cope with deficient data availability and limit the computational effort. We analyzed model errors due to soil data aggregation for modeled SOC trends. For a region in North West Germany, gridded soil data of spatial resolutions between 1 km and 100 km has been derived by majority selection. This data was used to simulate changes in SOC for a period of 30 years by 7 biogeochemical models. Soil data aggregation strongly affected modeled SOC trends. Prediction errors of simulated SOC changes decreased with increasing spatial resolution of model output. Output data aggregation only marginally reduced differences of model outputs between models indicating that errors caused by deficient model structure are likely to persist even if requirements on the spatial resolution of model outputs are low. (C)2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
