| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–20] |
|
van Bussel, L. G. J., Stehfest, E., Siebert, S., Müller, C., & Ewert, F. (2015). Simulation of the phenological development of wheat and maize at the global scale. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 24(9), 1018–1029.
Abstract: AimTo derive location-specific parameters that reflect the geographic differences among cultivars in vernalization requirements, sensitivity to day length (photoperiod) and temperature, which can be used to simulate the phenological development of wheat and maize at the global scale. LocationGlobal. Methods Based on crop calendar observations and literature describing the large-scale patterns of phenological characteristics of cultivars, we developed algorithms to compute location-specific parameters to represent this large-scale pattern. Vernalization requirements were related to the duration and coldness of winter, sensitivity to day length was assumed to be represented by the minimum and maximum day lengths occurring at a location, and sensitivity to temperature was related to temperature conditions during the vegetative development phase of the crop. Results Application of the derived location-specific parameters resulted in high agreement between simulated and observed lengths of the cropping period. Agreement was especially high for wheat, with mean absolute errors of less than 3 weeks. In the main maize cropping regions, cropping periods were over- and underestimated by 0.5-1.5 months. We also found that interannual variability in simulated wheat harvest dates was more realistic when accounting for photoperiod effects. Main conclusions The methodology presented here provides a good basis for modelling the phenological characteristics of cultivars at the global scale. We show that current global patterns of growing season length as described in cropping calendars can be largely reproduced by phenology models if location-specific parameters are derived from temperature and day length indicators. Growing seasons can be modelled more accurately for wheat than for maize, especially in warm regions. Our method for computing parameters for phenology models from temperature and day length offers opportunities to improve the simulation of crop productivity by crop simulation models developed for large spatial areas and for long-term climate impact projections that account for adaptation in the selection of varieties
|
|
Webber, H., Zhao, G., Wolf, J., Britz, W., Vries, W. de, Gaiser, T., et al. (2015). Climate change impacts on European crop yields: Do we need to consider nitrogen limitation. European Journal of Agronomy, 71, 123–134.
Abstract: Global climate impact studies with crop models suggest that including nitrogen and water limitation causes greater negative climate change impacts on actual yields compared to water-limitation only. We simulated water limited and nitrogen water limited yields across the EU-27 to 2050 for six key crops with the SIMPLACE<LINTUL5, DRUNIR, HEAT> model to assess how important consideration of nitrogen limitation is in climate impact studies for European cropping systems. We further investigated how crop nitrogen use may change under future climate change scenarios. Our results suggest that inclusion of nitrogen limitation hardly changed crop yield response to climate for the spring-sown crops considered (grain maize, potato, and sugar beet). However, for winter-sown crops (winter barley, winter rapeseed and winter wheat), simulated impacts to 2050 were more negative when nitrogen limitation was considered, especially with high levels of water stress. Future nitrogen use rates are likely to decrease due to climate change for spring-sown crops, largely in parallel with their yields. These results imply that climate change impact studies for winter-sown crops should consider N-fertilization. Specification of future N fertilization rates is a methodological challenge that is likely to need integrated assessment models to address.
|
|
Ewert, F., & al, E. (2015). Uncertainties in Scaling-Up Crop Models for Large-Area Climate Change Impact Assessments (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Problems related to food security and sustainable development are complex (Ericksenet al., 2009) and require consideration of biophysical, economic, political, and social factors, as well as their interactions, at the level of farms, regions, nations, and globally. While the solution to such societal problems may be largely political, there is a growing recognition of the need for science to provide sound information to decision-makers (Meinke et al., 2009). Achieving this, particularly in light of largely uncertain future climate and socio-economic changes, will necessitate integrated assessment approaches and appropriate integrated assessment modeling (IAM) tools to perform them. Recent (Ewertet al., 2009; van Ittersumet al., 2008) and ongoing (Rosenzweiget al., 2013) studies have tried to advance the integrated use of biophysical and economic models to represent better the complex interactions in agricultural systems that largely determine food supply and sustainable resource use. Nonetheless, the challenges for model integration across disciplines are substantial and range from methodological and technical details to an often still-weak conceptual basis on which to ground model integration (Ewertet al., 2009; Janssenet al., 2011). New generations of integrated assessment models based on well-understood, general relationships that are applicable to different agricultural systems across the world are still to be developed. Initial efforts are underway towards this advancement (Nelsonet al., 2014; Rosenzweiget al., 2013). Together with economic and climate models, crop models constitute an essential model group in IAM for large-area cropping systems climate change impact assessments. However, in addition to challenges associated with model integration, inadequate representation of many crops and crop management systems, as well as a lack of data for model initialization and calibration, limit the integration of crop models with climate and economic models (Ewertet al., 2014). A particular obstacle is the mismatch between the temporal and spatial scale of input/output variables required and delivered by the various models in the IAM model chain. Crop models are typically developed, tested, and calibrated for field-scale application (Booteet al., 2013; see also Part 1, Chapter 4 in this volume) and short time-series limited to one or few seasons. Although crop models are increasingly used for larger areas and longer time-periods (Bondeauet al., 2007; Deryng et al., 2011; Elliottet al., 2014) rigorous evaluation of such applications is pending. Among the different sources of uncertainty related to climate and soil data, model parameters, and structure, the uncertainty from methods used to scale-up crop models has received little attention, though recent evaluations indicate that upscaling of crop models for climate change impact assessment and the resulting errors and uncertainties deserve attention in order to advance crop modeling for climate change assessment (Ewertet al., 2014; R¨ otteret al., 2011). This reality is now reflected in the scientific agendas of new international research projects and programs such as the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP; Rosenzweiget al., 2013) and MACSUR (MACSUR, 2014). In this chapter, progress in evaluation of scaling methods with their related uncertainties is reviewed. Specific emphasis is on examining the results of systematic studies recently established in AgMIP and MACSUR. Main features of the respective simulation studies are presented together with preliminary results. Insights from these studies are summarized and conclusions for further work are drawn. No Label
|
|
Hoffmann, H., & Ewert, F. (2015). Review on scaling methods for crop models (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Agricultural systems cover a range of organisational levels and spatial and temporal scales. To capture multi-scale problems of sustainable management in agricultural systems, Integrated assessment modelling (IAM) including crop models is often applied which require methods of scale changes (scaling methods). Scaling methods, however, are often not well understood and are therefore sources of uncertainty in models. The present report summarizes scaling methods as developed and applied in recent years (e.g. in SEAMLESS-IF and MACSUR) in a classification scheme based on Ewert et al. (2011, 2006). Scale changes refer to different spatial, temporal and functional scales with changes in extent, resolution, and coverage rate. Accordingly, there are a number of different scaling methods that can include data extrapolation, aggregation and disaggregation, sampling and nested simulation. Comparative quantitative analysis of alternative scaling methods are currently under way and covered by other reports in MACSUR and several publications (e.g. Ewert et al., 2014; Hoffmann et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2015). The following classification of scaling methods assists to structure such analysis. Improved integration of scaling methods in IAM may help to overcome modelling limitations that are related to high data demand, complexity of models and scaling methods considered. No Label
|
|
Ewert, F., Rötter, R. P., Bindi, M., Webber, H., Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K., et al. (2015). Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change (Vol. 6).
Abstract: The complexity of risks posed by climate change and possible adaptations for crop production has called for integrated assessment and modelling (IAM) approaches linking biophysical and economic models. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the present state of crop modelling to assess climate change risks to food production and to which extent crop models comply with IAM demands. Considerable progress has been made in modelling effects of climate variables, where crop models best satisfy IAM demands. Demands are partly satisfied for simulating commonly required assessment variables. However, progress on the number of simulated crops, uncertainty propagation related to model parameters and structure, adaptations and scaling are less advanced and lagging behind IAM demands. The limitations are considered substantial and apply to a different extent to all crop models. Overcoming these limitations will require joint efforts, and consideration of novel modelling approaches. No Label
|