| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> |
|
Gutierrez, L., Piras, F., & Roggero, P. P. (2015). A global vector autoregression model for the analysis of wheat export prices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97(5), 1494–1511.
Abstract: Food commodity price fluctuations have an important impact on poverty and food insecurity across the world. Conventional models have not provided a complete picture of recent price spikes in agricultural commodity markets, and there is an urgent need for appropriate policy responses. Perhaps new approaches are needed to better understand international spill-overs, the feedback between the real and the financial sectors, as well as the link between food and energy prices. In this article, we present the results from a new worldwide dynamic model that provides the short and long-run impulse responses of the international wheat price to various real and financial shocks.
|
|
Jing, Q., Bélanger, G., Baron, V., Bonesmo, H., & Virkajärvi, P. (2013). Simulating the Nutritive Value of Timothy Summer Regrowth. Agronomy Journal, 105(3), 563.
Abstract: The process-based grass model, CATIMO, simulates the spring growth and nutritive value of timothy (Phleum pratense L.), a forage species widely grown in Scandinavia and Canada, but the nutritive value of the summer regrowth has never been simulated. Our objective was to improve CATIMO for simulating the N concentration, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), in vitro digestibility of NDF (dNDF), and in vitro true digestibility of dry matter (IVTD) of summer regrowth. Daily changes in summer regrowth nutritive value were simulated by modifying key crop parameters that differed from spring growth. More specifically, the partitioning fraction to leaf blades was increased to increase the leaf-to-weight ratio, and daily changes in NDF and dNDF of leaf blades and stems were reduced. The modified CATIMO model was evaluated with data from four independent experiments in eastern and western Canada and Finland. The model performed better for eastern Canada than for the other locations, but the nutritive value attributes of the summer regrowth across locations (range of normalized RMSE = 8-25%, slope < 0.17, R-2 < 0.10) were not simulated as well as those of the spring growth (range of normalized RMSE = 4-16%, 0.85 < slope < 1.07, R-2 > 0.61). These modeling results highlight knowledge gaps in timothy summer regrowth and prospective research directions: improved knowledge of factors controlling the nutritive value of the timothy summer regrowth and experimental measurements of leaf-to-weight ratio and of the nutritive value of leaves and stems.
|
|
Morales, I., Diaz, B. M., Hermoso De Mendoza, A., Nebreda, M., & Fereres, A. (2013). The Development of an Economic Threshold for Nasonovia ribisnigri (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on Lettuce in Central Spain. J. Econ. Entomol., 106(2), 891–898.
Abstract: This study reports economic thresholds for the lettuce aphid Nasonovia ribisnigri (Mosley), based exclusively on cosmetic damage, that is, presence or absence of aphids at harvest time. Field trials were conducted in La Poveda Experimental Farm, Madrid (Spain) during autumn (2004 and 2005) and spring (2005 and 2006). Plants were arranged in plots and just before the formation of lettuce hearts they were infested with different densities of N. ribisnigri. Two days later, half of each plot was treated with tau-fluvalinate (Klartan24AF) and the other half remained as an untreated control. Economic thresholds were obtained from nonlinear regressions calculated between the percentage of commercial plants at the end of the crop cycle for both, treated and untreated semiplots, and the different initial densities of N. ribisnigri per plant. Two criteria were used to consider a commercial lettuce plant: a conservative estimate (0 aphids/plant) and a lax one (< 5 aphids/plant). Thus, an economic threshold was established for each season and criterium. The economic thresholds that were obtained with the most and least conservative criteria were in spring 0.06 and 0.12 aphids per plant, and in autumn 0.07 and 0.13 aphids per plant, respectively. These results show that to avoid cosmetic damage, insecticide sprays are required when a very low aphid density is detected in lettuce seedlings soon after transplant.
|
|
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: 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. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
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.
|