|
|
Kopacz, M., & Twardy, S. (2014). Spatial Modeling as a Tool Supporting the Management of Catchment Area of Retention Reservoir..
|
|
|
|
Waha, K., & Müller, C. (2013). The essential temperature routines in LPJmL for wheat simulations. In P. D. Alderman, E. Quilligan, S. Asseng, F. Ewert, & M. P. Reynolds (Eds.), (pp. 81–84). Proceedings of the Workshop ‘Modeling Wheat Response to High Temperature’ CIMMYT, El Batan, Texcoco, Mexico, June 19-21, 2013.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., & Rivington, M. (2014). A framework structure to integrate improved methods for uncertainty evaluation, and protocols for methods application (Vol. 3).
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Overview paper on comprehensive framework for assessment of error and uncertainty in crop model predictions (Vol. 8).
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)
|
|
|
|
Semenov, M. A., & Stratonovitch, P. (2016). Local-scale CMIP5-based climate scenarios for MACSUR2 (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Climate sensitivity of GCMs was used to select 5 GCMs from the CMIP5 ensemble for impact studies in MACSUR2. Selected GCMs for MACSUR2 are EC-EARTH (7), GFDL-CM3 (8) HadGEM2-ES (10), MIROC5 (13), and MPI-ESM-MR (15). These GCMs are evenly distributed among CMIP5 (Fig 1) and should capture, in principal, climate uncertainty of the CMIP5 ensemble. Using 5 GCMs will enable us to assess uncertainties in impacts related to uncertainty in climate projections. The selection of GCMs in MACSUR2 has a good overlap with selections of GCMs used in CORDEX and AgMIP projects. We used the LARS-WG generator to construct local-scale CMIP5-based climate scenarios for Europe (Semenov & Stratonovitch, 2015). Fifteen sites were selected in Europe for MACSUR2. For each site and each selected GCM, 100 yrs climate daily data were generated by LARS-WG for RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 emission scenarios and for baseline and 3 future periods: near-term (2021-2040), mid-term (2041-2060) and long-term (2081-2100).
|
|
