| |
Records |
Links  |
|
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 |
Hlavinka, P.; Olesen, J.E.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Trnka, M.; Pohankova, E.; Stella, T.; Ferrise, R.; Moriondo, M.; Hoogenbom, G.; Shelia, V.; Nendel, C.; Wimmerová, M.; Topaj, A.; Medvedev, S.; Ventrella, D.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Rodríguez Sánchez, A.; Takáč, J.; Patil, R.H.; Öztürk, I.; Hoffmann, M.; Gobin, A.; Rötter, R.P. |
|
| |
Title |
Modelling long term effects of cropping and managements systems on soil organic matter, C/N dynamics and crop growth |
Type |
Report |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
10 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
C1.3-D |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
While simulation of cropping systems over a few years might reflect well the short term effects of management and cultivation, long term effects on soil properties and their consequences for crop growth and matter fluxes are not captured. Especially the effect on soil carbon sequestration/depletion is addressed by this task. Simulations of an ensemble of crop models are performed as transient runs over a period of 120 year using observed weather from three stations in Czech Republic (1961-2010) and transient long time climate change scenarios (2011-2080) from five GCM of the CMIP5 ensemble to assess the effect of different cropping and management systems on carbon sequestration, matter fluxes and crop production in an integrative way. Two cropping systems are regarded comprising two times winter wheat, silage maize, spring barley and oilseed rape. Crop rotations differ regarding their organic input from crop residues, nitrogen fertilization and implementation of catch crops. Models are applied for two soil types with different water holding capacity. Cultivation and nutrient management is adapted using management rules related to weather and soil conditions. Data of phenology and crop yield from the region of the regarded crops were provided to calibrate the models for crops of the rotations. Twelve models were calibrated in this first step. For the transient long term runs results of four models were submitted so far. Outputs are crop yields, nitrogen uptake, soil water and mineral nitrogen contents, as well as water and nitrogen fluxes to the atmosphere and groundwater. Changes in the carbon stocks and the consequences for nitrogen mineralisation, N fertilization and emissions also considered. |
|
| |
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 |
XC |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4976 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Trnka, M.; Hlavinka, P.; Wimmerová, M.; Pohanková, E.; Rötter, R.; Olesen, J.E.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Semenov, M. |
|
| |
Title |
Paper on model responses to selected adverse weather conditions |
Type |
Report |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
10 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
C1.2-D |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
Based on the Trnka et al. (2015) study that indicated that heat and drought will be the most important stress factors for most of the European what area the further effort focused on these two extremes. The crop model HERMES has been tested for its ability to replicate correctly drought stress, heat stress and combination of both stresses. While data on the drought stress were available for both field and growth chambers, heat stress and its combination with heat stress was available only for the growth chambers. The modified version of the HERMES crop model was developed by Dr. Kersebaum and is being currently prepared for the journal paper publication. |
|
| |
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 |
4954 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Ferrise, R.; Rodríguez, A.; Lorite, I.J.; Pirttioja, N.; Fronzek, S.; Palosuo, T.; Carter, T.R.; Bindi, M.; Höhn, J.G.; Baranowski, P.; Buis, S.; Cammarano, D.; Claas, N.; Deligios, P.; Havlinka, P.; Hoffmann, H.; Jurecka, F.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Krzyszczak, J.; Lana, M.; Mechiche-Alami, A.; Minet, J.; Montesino, M.; Porter, J.; Recio, J.; Ruget, F.; Sanz, A.; Steinmetz, Z.; Stratonovitch, P.; Supit, I.; Tao, F.; Trnka, M.; Ventrella, D.; de Wit, A.; Rötter, R.P. |
|
| |
Title |
Adaptation response surfaces from an ensemble of wheat projections under climate change in Europe |
Type |
Conference Article |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
|
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
Vienna (Austria) |
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
Geophysical Research Abstracts |
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
European GeoSciences Union (EGU), General Assembly 2016, 2016-04-17 to 2016-04-22, Vienna, Austria |
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4887 |
|
| 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 |
