| Records |
| 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 |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Wallach, D.; Mearns, L.O.; Ruane, A.C.; Rötter, R.P.; Asseng, S. |
| Title |
Lessons from climate modeling on the design and use of ensembles for crop modeling |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Climatic Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Clim. Change |
| Volume |
139 |
Issue |
3-4 |
Pages |
551-564 |
| Keywords |
change projections; elevated CO2; uncertainty; wheat; water; soil; simulations; yield; rice; 21st-century; Model ensembles; Crop models; Climate models; Model weighting; Super ensembles |
| Abstract |
Working with ensembles of crop models is a recent but important development in crop modeling which promises to lead to better uncertainty estimates for model projections and predictions, better predictions using the ensemble mean or median, and closer collaboration within the modeling community. There are numerous open questions about the best way to create and analyze such ensembles. Much can be learned from the field of climate modeling, given its much longer experience with ensembles. We draw on that experience to identify questions and make propositions that should help make ensemble modeling with crop models more rigorous and informative. The propositions include defining criteria for acceptance of models in a crop MME, exploring criteria for evaluating the degree of relatedness of models in a MME, studying the effect of number of models in the ensemble, development of a statistical model of model sampling, creation of a repository for MME results, studies of possible differential weighting of models in an ensemble, creation of single model ensembles based on sampling from the uncertainty distribution of parameter values or inputs specifically oriented toward uncertainty estimation, the creation of super ensembles that sample more than one source of uncertainty, the analysis of super ensemble results to obtain information on total uncertainty and the separate contributions of different sources of uncertainty and finally further investigation of the use of the multi-model mean or median as a predictor. |
| Address |
2017-01-06 |
| 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 |
0165-0009 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM, ft_MACSUR |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4933 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Wolf, J.; Kanellopoulos, A.; Kros, J.; Webber, H.; Zhao, G.; Britz, W.; Reinds, G.J.; Ewert, F.; de Vries, W. |
| Title |
Combined analysis of climate, technological and price changes on future arable farming systems in Europe |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agricultural Systems |
| Volume |
140 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
56-73 |
| Keywords |
agriculture; capri; climate change; environmental impact; farming system; fssim; integrated assessment; integrator; model linkage; n emission; price change; scenarios; simplace; technological change; crop simulation-models; agricultural land-use; integrated assessment; growth; strategies; nitrogen; soils; environment; scenarios; emissions |
| Abstract |
In this study, we compare the relative importance of climate change to technological, management, price and policy changes on European arable farming systems. This required linking four models: the SIMPLACE crop growth modelling framework to calculate future yields under climate change for arable crops; the CAPRI model to estimate impacts on global agricultural markets, specifically product prices; the bio-economic farm model FSSIM to calculate the future changes in cropping patterns and farm net income at the farm and regional level; and the environmental model INTEGRATOR to calculate nitrogen (N) uptake and losses to air and water. First, the four linked models were applied to analyse the effect of climate change only or a most likely baseline (i.e. B1) scenario for 2050 as well as for two alternative scenarios with, respectively, strong (i.e. A1-b1) and weak economic growth (B2) for five regions/countries across Europe (i.e. Denmark, Flevoland, Midi Pyrenees, Zachodniopomorsld and Andalucia). These analyses Were repeated but assuming in addition to climate change impacts, also the effects of changes in technology and management on crop yields, the effects of changes in prices and policies in 2050, and the effects of all factors together. The outcomes show that the effects of climate change to 2050 result in higher farm net incomes in the Northern and Northern-Central EU regions, in practically unchanged farm net incomes in the Central and Central-Southern EU regions, and in much lower farm net incomes in Southern EU regions compared to those in the base year. Climate change in combination with improved technology and farm management and/or with price changes towards 2050 results in a higher to much higher farm net incomes. Increases in farm net income for the B1 and A1-b1 scenarios are moderately stronger than those for the B2 scenario, due to the smaller increases in product prices and/or yields for the B2 scenario. Farm labour demand slightly to moderately increases towards 2050 as related to changes in cropping patterns. Changes in N2O emissions and N leaching compared to the base year are mainly caused by changes in total N inputs from the applied fertilizers and animal manure, which in turn are influenced by changes in crop yields and cropping patterns, whereas NH3 emissions are mainly determined by assumed improvements in manure application techniques. N emissions and N leaching strongly increase in Denmark and Zachodniopomorski, slightly decrease to moderately increase in Flevoland and Midi-Pyrenees, and strongly decrease in Andalucia, except for NH3 emissions which zero to moderately decrease in Flevoland and Denmark. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All tights reserved. |
| Address |
2015-10-12 |
| 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 |
0308-521x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4703 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Reidsma, P.; Bakker, M.M.; Kanellopoulos, A.; Alam, S.J.; Paas, W.; Kros, J.; de Vries, W. |
| Title |
Sustainable agricultural development in a rural area in the Netherlands? Assessing impacts of climate and socio-economic change at farm and landscape level |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agricultural Systems |
| Volume |
141 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
160-173 |
| Keywords |
Integrated assessment; Global change; Sustainability; Agriculture; Farm; structural change; Spatially explicit; Climate smart agriculture; affecting land-use; integrated assessment; multiobjective optimization; analytical framework; trade-offs; systems; uncertainties; policies; future; adaptation |
| Abstract |
Changes in climate, technology, policy and prices affect agricultural and rural development. To evaluate whether this development is sustainable, impacts of these multiple drivers need to be assessed for multiple indicators. In a case study area in the Netherlands, a bio-economic farm model, an agent-based land-use change model, and a regional emission model have been used to simulate rural development under two plausible global change scenarios at both farm and landscape level. Results show that in this area, climate change will have mainly negative economic impacts (dairy gross margin, arable gross margin, economic efficiency, milk production) in the warmer and drier W+ scenario, while impacts are slightly positive in the G scenario with moderate climate change. Dairy farmers are worse off than arable farmers in both scenarios. Conversely, when the W+ scenario is embedded in the socio-economic Global Economy (GE) scenario, changes in technology, prices, and policy are projected to have a positive economic impact, more than offsetting the negative climate impacts. Important is, however, that environmental impacts (global warming, terrestrial and aquatic eutrophication) are largely negative and social impacts (farm size, number of farms, nature area, odour) are mixed. In the G scenario combined with the socio-economic Regional Communities (RC) scenario the average dairy gross margin in particular is negatively affected. Social impacts are similarly mixed as in the GE scenario, while environmental impacts are less severe. Our results suggest that integrated assessments at farm and landscape level can be used to guide decision-makers in spatial planning policies and climate change adaptation. As there will always be trade-offs between economic, social, and environmental impacts stakeholders need to interact and decide upon most important directions for policies. This implies a choice between production and income on the one hand and social and environmental services on the other hand |
| Address |
2016-06-01 |
| 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 |
0308-521x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4742 |
| Permanent link to this record |
