|
|
Höhn, J., & Rötter, R. P. (2014). Impact of global warming on European cereal production. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 9(022), 1–15.
Abstract: This review examines relevant impact assessments identified by a literature search from 1991to date. A bibliographic search was applied to the CAB Abstracts database with a given searchstring. Resultant papers were checked for relevance, based on expert judgment. This yielded 91 papers, which were subjected to further analysis. Firstly, publication intensity over time and distribution by geographic location and cereal crop were examined. Next, for a given crop, the assessments and their outcomes were grouped by type and number of the change variables considered – that is, effects of climate change only, elevated CO 2 and technological progress(improved breeds, management). Finally, separately for individual countries/subregions and Europe as a whole, we examined whether and to what extent study results have changed over time, for example become more positive/negative. Based on our sample, we found that publication intensity increased exponentially during thelast 4 years, the majority of studies are Europe-wide, but some concentrated on a few countries(Italy, Spain and UK), whereby studies on wheat are clearly most popular. Taking the factor of technological progress into account has an overruling influence on results. Finally, over time, projected yield impacts have become more negative. This is in line with finding from global analyses, as reflected by the most recent comparison of agricultural impact chapters, of the 4thand 5th Assessment Reports of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II.In the future, there is particular need to consider impacts under various incremental and transformational adaptation measures in more depth (e.g. their interconnections across scales)and with more breadth (e.g. anticipated new breeds). Follow-up reviews should also examine how projected impacts are changing with the new climate scenario data sets (CMIP5) and with improved impact models and assessment approaches.
|
|
|
|
Rötter, R. P., Höhn, J., Trnka, M., Fronzek, S., Carter, T. R., & Kahiluoto, H. (2013). Modelling shifts in agroclimate and crop cultivar response under climate change. Ecol. Evol., 3(12), 4197–4214.
Abstract: THIS PAPER AIMS: (i) to identify at national scale areas where crop yield formation is currently most prone to climate-induced stresses, (ii) to evaluate how the severity of these stresses is likely to develop in time and space, and (iii) to appraise and quantify the performance of two strategies for adapting crop cultivation to a wide range of (uncertain) climate change projections. To this end we made use of extensive climate, crop, and soil data, and of two modelling tools: N-AgriCLIM and the WOFOST crop simulation model. N-AgriCLIM was developed for the automatic generation of indicators describing basic agroclimatic conditions and was applied over the whole of Finland. WOFOST was used to simulate detailed crop responses at four representative locations. N-AgriCLIM calculations have been performed nationally for 3829 grid boxes at a 10 × 10 km resolution and for 32 climate scenarios. Ranges of projected shifts in indicator values for heat, drought and other crop-relevant stresses across the scenarios vary widely – so do the spatial patterns of change. Overall, under reference climate the most risk-prone areas for spring cereals are found in south-west Finland, shifting to south-east Finland towards the end of this century. Conditions for grass are likely to improve. WOFOST simulation results suggest that CO2 fertilization and adjusted sowing combined can lead to small yield increases of current barley cultivars under most climate scenarios on favourable soils, but not under extreme climate scenarios and poor soils. This information can be valuable for appraising alternative adaptation strategies. It facilitates the identification of regions in which climatic changes might be rapid or otherwise notable for crop production, requiring a more detailed evaluation of adaptation measures. The results also suggest that utilizing the diversity of cultivar responses seems beneficial given the high uncertainty in climate change projections.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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: ► 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.
|
|
