| Records |
| 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 |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Kuhnert, M.; Yeluripati, J.; Smith, P.; Hoffmann, H.; van Oijen, M.; Constantin, J.; Coucheney, E.; Dechow, R.; Eckersten, H.; Gaiser, T.; Grosz, B.; Haas, E.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Kiese, R.; Klatt, S.; Lewan, E.; Nendel, C.; Raynal, H.; Sosa, C.; Specka, X.; Teixeira, E.; Wang, E.; Weihermüller, L.; Zhao, G.; Zhao, Z.; Ogle, S.; Ewert, F. |
| Title |
Impact analysis of climate data aggregation at different spatial scales on simulated net primary productivity for croplands |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
European Journal of Agronomy |
| Volume |
88 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
41-52 |
| Keywords |
Net primary production; NPP; Scaling; Extreme events; Crop modelling; Climate Data; aggregation |
| Abstract |
For spatial crop and agro-systems modelling, there is often a discrepancy between the scale of measured driving data and the target resolution. Spatial data aggregation is often necessary, which can introduce additional uncertainty into the simulation results. Previous studies have shown that climate data aggregation has little effect on simulation of phenological stages, but effects on net primary production (NPP) might still be expected through changing the length of the growing season and the period of grain filling. This study investigates the impact of spatial climate data aggregation on NPP simulation results, applying eleven different models for the same study region (∼34,000 km2), situated in Western Germany. To isolate effects of climate, soil data and management were assumed to be constant over the entire study area and over the entire study period of 29 years. Two crops, winter wheat and silage maize, were tested as monocultures. Compared to the impact of climate data aggregation on yield, the effect on NPP is in a similar range, but is slightly lower, with only small impacts on averages over the entire simulation period and study region. Maximum differences between the five scales in the range of 1–100 km grid cells show changes of 0.4–7.8% and 0.0–4.8% for wheat and maize, respectively, whereas the simulated potential NPP averages of the models show a wide range (1.9–4.2 g C m−2 d−1 and 2.7–6.1 g C m−2 d−1for wheat and maize, respectively). The impact of the spatial aggregation was also tested for shorter time periods, to see if impacts over shorter periods attenuate over longer periods. The results show larger impacts for single years (up to 9.4% for wheat and up to 13.6% for maize). An analysis of extreme weather conditions shows an aggregation effect in vulnerability up to 12.8% and 15.5% between the different resolutions for wheat and maize, respectively. Simulations of NPP averages over larger areas (e.g. regional scale) and longer time periods (several years) are relatively insensitive to climate data. |
| Address |
2016-09-13 |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
Newsletter July |
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 |
4775 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Grosz, B.; Dechow, R.; Gebbert, S.; Hoffmann, H.; Zhao, G.; Constantin, J.; Raynal, H.; Wallach, D.; Coucheney, E.; Lewan, E.; Eckersten, H.; Specka, X.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Nendel, C.; Kuhnert, M.; Yeluripati, J.; Haas, E.; Teixeira, E.; Bindi, M.; Trombi, G.; Moriondo, M.; Doro, L.; Roggero, P.P.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, E.; Tao, F.; Roetter, R.; Kassie, B.; Cammarano, D.; Asseng, S.; Weihermueller, L.; Siebert, S.; Gaiser, T.; Ewert, F. |
| Title |
The implication of input data aggregation on up-scaling soil organic carbon changes |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Environmental Modelling & Software |
Abbreviated Journal |
Env. Model. Softw. |
| Volume |
96 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
361-377 |
| Keywords |
Biogeochemical model; Data aggregation; Up-scaling error; Soil organic carbon; DIFFERENT SPATIAL SCALES; NITROUS-OXIDE EMISSIONS; MODELING SYSTEM; DATA; RESOLUTION; CROP MODELS; CLIMATE; LONG; PRODUCTIVITY; CROPLANDS; DAYCENT |
| Abstract |
In up-scaling studies, model input data aggregation is a common method to cope with deficient data availability and limit the computational effort. We analyzed model errors due to soil data aggregation for modeled SOC trends. For a region in North West Germany, gridded soil data of spatial resolutions between 1 km and 100 km has been derived by majority selection. This data was used to simulate changes in SOC for a period of 30 years by 7 biogeochemical models. Soil data aggregation strongly affected modeled SOC trends. Prediction errors of simulated SOC changes decreased with increasing spatial resolution of model output. Output data aggregation only marginally reduced differences of model outputs between models indicating that errors caused by deficient model structure are likely to persist even if requirements on the spatial resolution of model outputs are low. (C)2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. |
| Address |
2017-09-14 |
| 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 |
5176 |
| 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 |
