| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–13] |
|
Ruane, A. C., Hudson, N. I., Asseng, S., Camarrano, D., Ewert, F., Martre, P., et al. (2016). Multi-wheat-model ensemble responses to interannual climate variability. Env. Model. Softw., 81, 86–101.
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.
|
|
Tao, F., Roetter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Diaz-Ambrona, C. G. H., Ines Minguez, M., Semenov, M. A., et al. (2017). Designing future barley ideotypes using a crop model ensemble. Europ. J. Agron., 82, 144–162.
Abstract: Climate change and its associated higher frequency and severity of adverse weather events require genotypic adaptation. Process-based ecophysiological modelling offers a powerful means to better target and accelerate development of new crop cultivars. Barley (Hordeum vulgare L) is an important crop throughout the world, and a good model for study of the genetics of stress adaptation because many quantitative trait loci and candidate genes for biotic and abiotic stress tolerance have been identified in it. Here, we developed a new approach to design future crop ideotypes using an ensemble of eight barley simulation models (i.e. APSIM, CropSyst, HERMES, MCWLA, MONICA, SIMPLACE, Sirius Quality, and WOFOST), and applied it to design climate-resilient barley ideotypes for Boreal and Mediterranean climatic zones in Europe. The results showed that specific barley genotypes, represented by sets of cultivar parameters in the crop models, could be promising under future climate change conditions, resulting in increased yields and low inter-annual yield variability. In contrast, other genotypes could result in substantial yield declines. The most favorable climate-zone-specific barley ideotypes were further proposed, having combinations of several key genetic traits in terms of phenology, leaf growth, photosynthesis, drought tolerance, and grain formation. For both Boreal and Mediterranean climatic zones, barley ideotypes under future climatic conditions should have a longer reproductive growing period, lower leaf senescence rate, larger radiation use efficiency or maximum assimilation rate, and higher drought tolerance. Such characteristics can produce substantial positive impacts on yields under contrasting conditions. Moreover, barley ideotypes should have a low photoperiod and high vernalization sensitivity for the Boreal climatic zone; for the Mediterranean, in contrast, it should have a low photoperiod and low vernalization sensitivity. The drought-tolerance trait is more beneficial for the Mediterranean than for the Boreal climatic zone. Our study demonstrates a sound approach to design future barley ideotypes based on an ensemble of well-tested, diverse crop models and on integration of knowledge from multiple disciplines. The robustness of model-aided ideotypes design can be further enhanced by continuously improving crop models and enhancing information exchange between modellers, agro-meteorologists, geneticists, physiologists, and plant breeders. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
Kahiluoto, H., Kaseva, J., Balek, J., Olesen, J. E., Ruiz-Ramos, M., Gobin, A., et al. (2019). Decline in climate resilience of European wheat. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 116(1), 123–128.
Abstract: Food security relies on the resilience of staple food crops to climatic variability and extremes, but the climate resilience of European wheat is unknown. A diversity of responses to disturbance is considered a key determinant of resilience. The capacity of a sole crop genotype to perform well under climatic variability is limited; therefore, a set of cultivars with diverse responses to weather conditions critical to crop yield is required. Here, we show a decline in the response diversity of wheat in farmers’ fields in most European countries after 2002-2009 based on 101,000 cultivar yield observations. Similar responses to weather were identified in cultivar trials among central European countries and southern European countries. A response diversity hotspot appeared in the trials in Slovakia, while response diversity “deserts” were identified in Czechia and Germany and for durum wheat in southern Europe. Positive responses to abundant precipitation were lacking. This assessment suggests that current breeding programs and cultivar selection practices do not sufficiently prepare for climatic uncertainty and variability. Consequently, the demand for climate resilience of staple food crops such as wheat must be better articulated. Assessments and communication of response diversity enable collective learning across supply chains. Increased awareness could foster governance of resilience through research and breeding programs, incentives, and regulation.
Keywords: wheat; cultivar; Europe; climate resilience; response diversity; Diversity; Weather; Growth; Shifts; Crops; Yield; Variability
|
|
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.
|
|
Nendel, C., Wieland, R., Mirschel, W., Specka, X., Guddat, C., & Kersebaum, K. C. (2013). Simulating regional winter wheat yields using input data of different spatial resolution. Field Crops Research, 145, 67–77.
Abstract: The success of using agro-ecosystem models for the high-resolution simulation of agricultural yields for larger areas is often hampered by a lack of input data. We investigated the effect of different spatially resolved soil and weather data used as input for the MONICA model on its ability to reproduce winter wheat yields in the Federal State of Thuringia, Germany (16,172 km(2)). The combination of one representative soil and one weather station was insufficient to reproduce the observed mean yield of 6.66 +/- 0.87 t ha(-1) for the federal state. Use of a 100 m x 100 m grid of soil and relief information combined with just one representative weather station yielded a good estimator (7.01 +/- 1.47 t ha(-1)). The soil and relief data grid used in combination with weather information from 14 weather stations in a nearest neighbour approach produced even better results (6.60 +/- 1.37 t ha(-1)); the same grid used with 39 additional rain gauges and an interpolation algorithm that included an altitude correction of temperature data slightly overpredicted the observed mean (7.36 +/- 1.17 t ha(-1)). It was concluded that the apparent success of the first two high-resolution approaches over the latter was based on two effects that cancelled each other out: the calibration of MONICA to match high-yield experimental data and the growth-defining and -limiting effect of weather data that is not representative for large parts of the region. At the county and farm level the MONICA model failed to reproduce the 1992-2010 time series of yields, which is partly explained by the fact that many growth-reducing factors were not considered in the model. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|