| Records |
| Author |
Ruane, A.C.; Hudson, N.I.; Asseng, S.; Camarrano, D.; Ewert, F.; Martre, P.; Boote, K.J.; Thorburn, P.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Angulo, C.; Basso, B.; Bertuzzi, P.; Biernath, C.; Brisson, N.; Challinor, &rew J.; Doltra, J.; Gayler, S.; Goldberg, R.; Grant, R.F.; Heng, L.; Hooker, J.; Hunt, L.A.; Ingwersen, J.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Kumar, S.N.; Müller, C.; Nendel, C.; O’Leary, G.; Olesen, J.E.; Osborne, T.M.; Palosuo, T.; Priesack, E.; Ripoche, D.; Rötter, R.P.; Semenov, M.A.; Shcherbak, I.; Steduto, P.; Stöckle, C.O.; Stratonovitch, P.; Streck, T.; Supit, I.; Tao, F.; Travasso, M.; Waha, K.; Wallach, D.; White, J.W.; Wolf, J. |
| Title |
Multi-wheat-model ensemble responses to interannual climate variability |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Environmental Modelling & Software |
Abbreviated Journal |
Env. Model. Softw. |
Volume  |
81 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
86-101 |
| Keywords |
Crop modeling; Uncertainty; Multi-model ensemble; Wheat; AgMIP; Climate; impacts; Temperature; Precipitation; lnterannual variability; simulation-model; crop model; nitrogen dynamics; winter-wheat; large-area; systems simulation; farming systems; yield response; growth; water |
| 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. |
| 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 |
4769 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Tao, F.; Roetter, R.P.; Palosuo, T.; Diaz-Ambrona, C.G.H.; Ines Minguez, M.; Semenov, M.A.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Nendel, C.; Cammarano, D.; Hoffmann, H.; Ewert, F.; Dambreville, A.; Martre, P.; Rodriguez, L.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Gaiser, T.; Hohn, J.G.; Salo, T.; Ferrise, R.; Bindi, M.; Schulman, A.H. |
| Title |
Designing future barley ideotypes using a crop model ensemble |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2017 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
Europ. J. Agron. |
| Volume |
82 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
144-162 |
| Keywords |
Water-Use Efficiency; Climate-Change; Nitrogen Dynamics; Systems; Simulation; Wheat Cultivars; Grain Weight; Yield; Growth; Fertilization; Adaptation; Adaptation; Breeding; Climate change; Crop simulation models; Impact; Genotype; Genetic traits |
| 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. |
| Address |
2017-01-20 |
| 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 |
1161-0301 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM, ft_MACSUR |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4935 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Schils, R.; Olesen, J.E.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Rijk, B.; Oberforster, M.; Kalyada, V.; Khitrykau, M.; Gobin, A.; Kirchev, H.; Manolova, V.; Manolov, I.; Trnka, M.; Hlavinka, P.; Palosuo, T.; Peltonen-Sainio, P.; Jauhiainen, L.; Lorgeou, J.; Marrou, H.; Danalatos, N.; Archontoulis, S.; Fodor, N.; Spink, J.; Roggero, P.P.; Bassu, S.; Pulina, A.; Seehusen, T.; Uhlen, A.K.; Zylowska, K.; Nierobca, A.; Kozyra, J.; Silva, J.V.; Macas, B.M.; Coutinho, J.; Ion, V.; Takac, J.; Ines Minguez, M.; Eckersten, H.; Levy, L.; Herrera, J.M.; Hiltbrunner, J.; Kryvobok, O.; Kryvoshein, O.; Sylvester-Bradley, R.; Kindred, D.; Topp, C.F.E.; Boogaard, H.; de Groot, H.; Lesschen, J.P.; van Bussel, L.; Wolf, J.; Zijlstra, M.; van Loon, M.P.; van Ittersum, M.K. |
| Title |
Cereal yield gaps across Europe |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2018 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
Europ. J. Agron. |
| Volume |
101 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
109-120 |
| Keywords |
Wheat, Barley, Grain maize, Crop modelling, Yield potential, Nitrogen; Nitrogen Use Efficiency; Sustainable Intensification; Climate-Change; Land-Use; Wheat; Soil; Agriculture; Impacts; Fertility; Emissions |
| Abstract |
Europe accounts for around 20% of the global cereal production and is a net exporter of ca. 15% of that production. Increasing global demand for cereals justifies questions as to where and by how much Europe’s production can be increased to meet future global market demands, and how much additional nitrogen (N) crops would require. The latter is important as environmental concern and legislation are equally important as production aims in Europe. Here, we used a country-by-country, bottom-up approach to establish statistical estimates of actual grain yield, and compare these to modelled estimates of potential yields for either irrigated or rainfed conditions. In this way, we identified the yield gaps and the opportunities for increased cereal production for wheat, barley and maize, which represent 90% of the cereals grown in Europe. The combined mean annual yield gap of wheat, barley, maize was 239 Mt, or 42% of the yield potential. The national yield gaps ranged between 10 and 70%, with small gaps in many north-western European countries, and large gaps in eastern and south-western Europe. Yield gaps for rainfed and irrigated maize were consistently lower than those of wheat and barley. If the yield gaps of maize, wheat and barley would be reduced from 42% to 20% of potential yields, this would increase annual cereal production by 128 Mt (39%). Potential for higher cereal production exists predominantly in Eastern Europe, and half of Europe’s potential increase is located in Ukraine, Romania and Poland. Unlocking the identified potential for production growth requires a substantial increase of the crop N uptake of 4.8 Mt. Across Europe, the average N uptake gaps, to achieve 80% of the yield potential, were 87, 77 and 43 kg N ha(-1) for wheat, barley and maize, respectively. Emphasis on increasing the N use efficiency is necessary to minimize the need for additional N inputs. Whether yield gap reduction is desirable and feasible is a matter of balancing Europe’s role in global food security, farm economic objectives and environmental targets. |
| Address |
2019-01-07 |
| 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 |
1161-0301 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5213 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Rötter, R.P.; Palosuo, T.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Angulo, C.; Bindi, M.; Ewert, F.; Ferrise, R.; Hlavinka, P.; Moriondo, M.; Nendel, C.; Olesen, J.E.; Patil, R.H.; Ruget, F.; Takác, J.; Trnka, M. |
| Title |
Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2012 |
Publication |
Field Crops Research |
Abbreviated Journal |
Field Crops Research |
| Volume |
133 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
23-36 |
| Keywords |
climate; crop growth simulation; model comparison; spring barley; yield variability; uncertainty; change impacts; nitrogen dynamics; high-temperature; soil-moisture; elevated co2; ceres-wheat; data set; growth; drought; sensitivity |
| 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. |
| Address |
2016-10-31 |
| 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 |
0378-4290 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4803 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Rötter, R.P.; Palosuo, T.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Angulo, C.; Bindi, M.; Ewert, F.; Ferrise, R.; Hlavinka, P.; Moriondo, M.; Olesen, J.E.; Takáč, J.; Trnka, M. |
| Title |
Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2012 |
Publication |
Field Crops Research |
Abbreviated Journal |
Field Crops Research |
| Volume |
133 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
23-36 |
| Keywords |
Climate; Crop growth simulation; Model comparison; Spring barley; Yield variability; Uncertainty; change impacts; nitrogen dynamics; high-temperature; soil-moisture; elevated co2; ceres-wheat; data set; growth; drought; sensitivity |
| 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. |
| 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 |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4592 |
| Permanent link to this record |
