| |
Records |
Links |
|
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 |
Zhao, G.; Hoffmann, H.; Yeluripati, J.; Xenia, S.; Nendel, C.; Coucheney, E.; Kuhnert, M.; Tao, F.; Constantin, J.; Raynal, H.; Teixeira, E.; Grosz, B.; Doro, L.; Kiese, R.; Eckersten, H.; Haas, E.; Cammarano, D.; Kassie, B.; Moriondo, M.; Trombi, G.; Bindi, M.; Biernath, C.; Heinlein, F.; Klein, C.; Priesack, E.; Lewan, E.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Rötter, R.; Roggero, P.P.; Wallach, D.; Asseng, S.; Siebert, S.; Gaiser, T.; Ewert, F. |
|
| |
Title |
Evaluating the precision of eight spatial sampling schemes in estimating regional means of simulated yield for two crops |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Environmental Modelling & Software |
Abbreviated Journal |
Env. Model. Softw. |
|
| |
Volume |
80 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
100-112 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Crop model; Stratified random sampling; Simple random sampling; Clustering; Up-scaling; Model comparison; Precision gain; species distribution models; systems simulation; weather data; large-scale; design; soil; optimization; growth; apsim; autocorrelation |
|
| |
Abstract |
We compared the precision of simple random sampling (SimRS) and seven types of stratified random sampling (StrRS) schemes in estimating regional mean of water-limited yields for two crops (winter wheat and silage maize) that were simulated by fourteen crop models. We found that the precision gains of StrRS varied considerably across stratification methods and crop models. Precision gains for compact geographical stratification were positive, stable and consistent across crop models. Stratification with soil water holding capacity had very high precision gains for twelve models, but resulted in negative gains for two models. Increasing the sample size monotonously decreased the sampling errors for all the sampling schemes. We conclude that compact geographical stratification can modestly but consistently improve the precision in estimating regional mean yields. Using the most influential environmental variable for stratification can notably improve the sampling precision, especially when the sensitivity behavior of a crop model is known. |
|
| |
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 |
4724 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Liu, B.; Martre, P.; Ewert, F.; Porter, J.R.; Challinor, A.J.; Mueller, C.; Ruane, A.C.; Waha, K.; Thorburn, P.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Ahmed, M.; Balkovic, J.; Basso, B.; Biernath, C.; Bindi, M.; Cammarano, D.; De Sanctis, G.; Dumont, B.; Espadafor, M.; Rezaei, E.E.; Ferrise, R.; Garcia-Vila, M.; Gayler, S.; Gao, Y.; Horan, H.; Hoogenboom, G.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Jones, C.D.; Kassie, B.T.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Klein, C.; Koehler, A.-K.; Maiorano, A.; Minoli, S.; San Martin, M.M.; Kumar, S.N.; Nendel, C.; O’Leary, G.J.; Palosuo, T.; Priesack, E.; Ripoche, D.; Roetter, R.P.; Semenov, M.A.; Stockle, C.; Streck, T.; Supit, I.; Tao, F.; Van der Velde, M.; Wallach, D.; Wang, E.; Webber, H.; Wolf, J.; Xiao, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Asseng, S. |
|
| |
Title |
Global wheat production with 1.5 and 2.0 degrees C above pre-industrial warming |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2019 |
Publication |
Global Change Biology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Glob. Chang. Biol. |
|
| |
Volume |
25 |
Issue |
4 |
Pages |
1428-1444 |
|
| |
Keywords |
1.5 degrees C warming; climate change; extreme low yields; food security; model ensemble; wheat production; Climate-Change; Crop Yield; Impacts; Co2; Adaptation; Responses; Models; Agriculture; Simulation; Growth |
|
| |
Abstract |
Efforts to limit global warming to below 2 degrees C in relation to the pre-industrial level are under way, in accordance with the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, most impact research on agriculture to date has focused on impacts of warming >2 degrees C on mean crop yields, and many previous studies did not focus sufficiently on extreme events and yield interannual variability. Here, with the latest climate scenarios from the Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts (HAPPI) project, we evaluated the impacts of the 2015 Paris Agreement range of global warming (1.5 and 2.0 degrees C warming above the pre-industrial period) on global wheat production and local yield variability. A multi-crop and multi-climate model ensemble over a global network of sites developed by the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) for Wheat was used to represent major rainfed and irrigated wheat cropping systems. Results show that projected global wheat production will change by -2.3% to 7.0% under the 1.5 degrees C scenario and -2.4% to 10.5% under the 2.0 degrees C scenario, compared to a baseline of 1980-2010, when considering changes in local temperature, rainfall, and global atmospheric CO2 concentration, but no changes in management or wheat cultivars. The projected impact on wheat production varies spatially; a larger increase is projected for temperate high rainfall regions than for moderate hot low rainfall and irrigated regions. Grain yields in warmer regions are more likely to be reduced than in cooler regions. Despite mostly positive impacts on global average grain yields, the frequency of extremely low yields (bottom 5 percentile of baseline distribution) and yield inter-annual variability will increase under both warming scenarios for some of the hot growing locations, including locations from the second largest global wheat producer-India, which supplies more than 14% of global wheat. The projected global impact of warming <2 degrees C on wheat production is therefore not evenly distributed and will affect regional food security across the globe as well as food prices and trade. |
|
| |
Address |
2019-04-27 |
|
| |
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 |
1354-1013 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5219 |
|
| 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 |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
in press |
|
| |
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 |
|
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 |
4985 |
|
| 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 |
