| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> |
|
| Records | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Challinor, A.J.; Müller, C.; Asseng, S.; Deva, C.; Nicklin, K.J.; Wallach, D.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Whitfield, S.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Koehler, A.-K. | ||||
| Title | Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2017 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal | Agric. Syst. |
| Volume | 159 | Issue | Pages | 296-306 | |
| Keywords | Crop model; Risk assessment; Climate change impacts; Adaptation; Climate models; Uncertainty | ||||
| Abstract | Highlights • 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments Abstract Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper. |
||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | phase 2+ | Original Title | ||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | 0308521x | ISBN | Medium | ||
| Area | CropM | Expedition | Conference | ||
Notes  |
CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5175 | ||
| 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 | Hoffmann, M.P.; Haakana, M.; Asseng, S.; Höhn, J.G.; Palosuo, T.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Fronzek, S.; Ewert, F.; Gaiser, T.; Kassie, B.T.; Paff, K.; Rezaei, E.E.; Rodríguez, A.; Semenov, M.; Srivastava, A.K.; Stratonovitch, P.; Tao, F.; Chen, Y.; Rötter, R.P. | ||||
| Title | How does inter-annual variability of attainable yield affect the magnitude of yield gaps for wheat and maize? An analysis at ten sites | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2017 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal | Agric. Syst. |
| Volume | 159 | Issue | Pages | 199-208 | |
| Keywords | |||||
| Abstract | Highlights • The larger simulated attainable yield for a specific crop season, the larger the yield gap. • Average size of the yield gap is not affected by the inter-annual variability of attainable yield. • Technology levels (resource input and accessibility) determine average yield gap. • To reduce yield gaps in rainfed environments, farmers need to improve season-specific crop management. Abstract Provision of food security in the face of increasing global food demand requires narrowing of the gap between actual farmer’s yield and maximum attainable yield. So far, assessments of yield gaps have focused on average yield over 5–10 years, but yield gaps can vary substantially between crop seasons. In this study we hypothesized that climate-induced inter-annual yield variability and associated risk is a major barrier for farmers to invest, i.e. increase inputs to narrow the yield gap. We evaluated the importance of inter-annual attainable yield variability for the magnitude of the yield gap by utilizing data for wheat and maize at ten sites representing some major food production systems and a large range of climate and soil conditions across the world. Yield gaps were derived from the difference of simulated attainable yields and regional recorded farmer yields for 1981 to 2010. The size of the yield gap did not correlate with the amplitude of attainable yield variability at a site, but was rather associated with the level of available resources such as labor, fertilizer and plant protection inputs. For the sites in Africa, recorded yield reached only 20% of the attainable yield, while for European, Asian and North American sites it was 56–84%. Most sites showed that the higher the attainable yield of a specific season the larger was the yield gap. This significant relationship indicated that farmers were not able to take advantage of favorable seasonal weather conditions. To reduce yield gaps in the different environments, reliable seasonal weather forecasts would be required to allow farmers to manage each seasonal potential, i.e. overcoming season-specific yield limitations. | ||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | phase 2+ | Original Title | ||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | 0308521x | ISBN | Medium | ||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5185 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Fronzek, S.; Pirttioja, N.; Carter, T.R.; Bindi, M.; Hoffmann, H.; Palosuo, T.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Tao, F.; Trnka, M.; Acutis, M.; Asseng, S.; Baranowski, P.; Basso, B.; Bodin, P.; Buis, S.; Cammarano, D.; Deligios, P.; Destain, M.-F.; Dumont, B.; Ewert, F.; Ferrise, R.; Francois, L.; Gaiser, T.; Hlavinka, P.; Jacquemin, I.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Kollas, C.; Krzyszczaki, J.; Lorite, I.J.; Minet, J.; Ines Minguez, M.; Montesino, M.; Moriondo, M.; Mueller, C.; Nendel, C.; Ozturk, I.; Perego, A.; Rodriguez, A.; Ruane, A.C.; Ruget, F.; Sanna, M.; Semenov, M.A.; Slawinski, C.; Stratonovitch, P.; Supit, I.; Waha, K.; Wang, E.; Wu, L.; Zhao, Z.; Rotter, R.P. | ||||
| Title | Classifying multi-model wheat yield impact response surfaces showing sensitivity to temperature and precipitation change | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2018 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal | Agric. Syst. |
| Volume | 159 | Issue | Pages | 209-224 | |
| Keywords | Classification; Climate change; Crop model; Ensemble; Sensitivity analysis; Wheat; Climate-Change; Crop Models; Probabilistic Assessment; Simulating; Impacts; British Catchments; Uncertainty; Europe; Productivity; Calibration; Adaptation | ||||
| Abstract | Crop growth simulation models can differ greatly in their treatment of key processes and hence in their response to environmental conditions. Here, we used an ensemble of 26 process-based wheat models applied at sites across a European transect to compare their sensitivity to changes in temperature (-2 to +9 degrees C) and precipitation (-50 to +50%). Model results were analysed by plotting them as impact response surfaces (IRSs), classifying the IRS patterns of individual model simulations, describing these classes and analysing factors that may explain the major differences in model responses. The model ensemble was used to simulate yields of winter and spring wheat at four sites in Finland, Germany and Spain. Results were plotted as IRSs that show changes in yields relative to the baseline with respect to temperature and precipitation. IRSs of 30-year means and selected extreme years were classified using two approaches describing their pattern. The expert diagnostic approach (EDA) combines two aspects of IRS patterns: location of the maximum yield (nine classes) and strength of the yield response with respect to climate (four classes), resulting in a total of 36 combined classes defined using criteria pre-specified by experts. The statistical diagnostic approach (SDA) groups IRSs by comparing their pattern and magnitude, without attempting to interpret these features. It applies a hierarchical clustering method, grouping response patterns using a distance metric that combines the spatial correlation and Euclidian distance between IRS pairs. The two approaches were used to investigate whether different patterns of yield response could be related to different properties of the crop models, specifically their genealogy, calibration and process description. Although no single model property across a large model ensemble was found to explain the integrated yield response to temperature and precipitation perturbations, the application of the EDA and SDA approaches revealed their capability to distinguish: (i) stronger yield responses to precipitation for winter wheat than spring wheat; (ii) differing strengths of response to climate changes for years with anomalous weather conditions compared to period-average conditions; (iii) the influence of site conditions on yield patterns; (iv) similarities in IRS patterns among models with related genealogy; (v) similarities in IRS patterns for models with simpler process descriptions of root growth and water uptake compared to those with more complex descriptions; and (vi) a closer correspondence of IRS patterns in models using partitioning schemes to represent yield formation than in those using a harvest index. Such results can inform future crop modelling studies that seek to exploit the diversity of multi-model ensembles, by distinguishing ensemble members that span a wide range of responses as well as those that display implausible behaviour or strong mutual similarities. | ||||
| Address | 2018-01-25 | ||||
| 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 | ||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5186 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Webber, H.; White, J.W.; Kimball, B.A.; Ewert, F.; Asseng, S.; Rezaei, E.E.; Pinter, P.J., Jr.; Hatfield, J.L.; Reynolds, M.P.; Ababaei, B.; Bindi, M.; Doltra, J.; Ferrise, R.; Kage, H.; Kassie, B.T.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Luig, A.; Olesen, J.E.; Semenov, M.A.; Stratonovitch, P.; Ratjen, A.M.; LaMorte, R.L.; Leavitt, S.W.; Hunsaker, D.J.; Wall, G.W.; Martre, P. | ||||
| Title | Physical robustness of canopy temperature models for crop heat stress simulation across environments and production conditions | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2018 | Publication | Field Crops Research | Abbreviated Journal | Field Crops Research |
| Volume | 216 | Issue | Pages | 75-88 | |
| Keywords | Heat stress; Crop model improvement; Heat and drought interactions; Climate change impact assessments; Canopy temperature; Wheat; Air CO2 Enrichment; Elevated Carbon-Dioxide; Water-Use Efficiency; Climate-Change; Wheat Evapotranspiration; Stomatal Conductance; Multimodel Ensembles; Farming Systems; Drought-Stress; Spring Wheat | ||||
| Abstract | Despite widespread application in studying climate change impacts, most crop models ignore complex interactions among air temperature, crop and soil water status, CO2 concentration and atmospheric conditions that influence crop canopy temperature. The current study extended previous studies by evaluating Tc simulations from nine crop models at six locations across environmental and production conditions. Each crop model implemented one of an empirical (EMP), an energy balance assuming neutral stability (EBN) or an energy balance correcting for atmospheric stability conditions (EBSC) approach to simulate Tc. Model performance in predicting Tc was evaluated for two experiments in continental North America with various water, nitrogen and CO2 treatments. An empirical model fit to one dataset had the best performance, followed by the EBSC models. Stability conditions explained much of the differences between modeling approaches. More accurate simulation of heat stress will likely require use of energy balance approaches that consider atmospheric stability conditions. | ||||
| Address | 2018-02-19 | ||||
| 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, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5189 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||