| Records |
| Author |
Asseng, S.; Ewert, F.; Rosenzweig, C.; Jones, J.W.; Hatfield, J.L.; Ruane, A.C.; Boote, K.J.; Thorburn, P.J.; Rötter, R.P.; Cammarano, D.; Brisson, N.; Basso, B.; Martre, P.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Angulo, C.; Bertuzzi, P.; Biernath, C.; Challinor, A.J.; Doltra, J.; Gayler, S.; Goldberg, R.; Grant, R.; Heng, L.; Hooker, J.; Hunt, L.A.; Ingwersen, J.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Müller, C.; Naresh Kumar, S.; Nendel, C.; O’Leary, G.; Olesen, J.E.; Osborne, T.M.; Palosuo, T.; Priesack, E.; Ripoche, D.; Semenov, M.A.; Shcherbak, I.; Steduto, P.; Stöckle, C.; Stratonovitch, P.; Streck, T.; Supit, I.; Tao, F.; Travasso, M.; Waha, K.; Wallach, D.; White, J.W.; Williams, J.R.; Wolf, J. |
| Title |
Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2013 |
Publication |
Nature Climate Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Nat. Clim. Change |
| Volume |
3 |
Issue |
9 |
Pages |
827-832 |
| Keywords |
crop production; models; food; co2; temperature; projections; adaptation; scenarios; ensemble; impacts |
| Abstract |
Projections of climate change impacts on crop yields are inherently uncertain(1). Uncertainty is often quantified when projecting future greenhouse gas emissions and their influence on climate(2). However, multi-model uncertainty analysis of crop responses to climate change is rare because systematic and objective comparisons among process-based crop simulation models(1,3) are difficult(4). Here we present the largest standardized model intercomparison for climate change impacts so far. We found that individual crop models are able to simulate measured wheat grain yields accurately under a range of environments, particularly if the input information is sufficient. However, simulated climate change impacts vary across models owing to differences in model structures and parameter values. A greater proportion of the uncertainty in climate change impact projections was due to variations among crop models than to variations among downscaled general circulation models. Uncertainties in simulated impacts increased with CO2 concentrations and associated warming. These impact uncertainties can be reduced by improving temperature and CO2 relationships in models and better quantified through use of multi-model ensembles. Less uncertainty in describing how climate change may affect agricultural productivity will aid adaptation strategy development and policymaking. |
| 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 |
1758-678x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM, ftnotmacsur, IPCC-AR5 |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4599 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Kersebaum, K.C.; Boote, K.J.; Jorgenson, J.S.; Nendel, C.; Bindi, M.; Frühauf, C.; Gaiser, T.; Hoogenboom, G.; Kollas, C.; Olesen, J.E.; Rötter, R.P.; Ruget, F.; Thorburn, P.J.; Trnka, M.; Wegehenkel, M. |
| Title |
Analysis and classification of data sets for calibration and validation of agro-ecosystem models |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Environmental Modelling & Software |
Abbreviated Journal |
Env. Model. Softw. |
| Volume |
72 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
402-417 |
| Keywords |
field experiments; data quality; crop modelling; data requirement; minimum data; software; different climatic zones; soil-moisture sensors; spatial variability; nitrogen dynamics; crop models; systems simulation; wheat yields; elevated co2; growth; field |
| Abstract |
Experimental field data are used at different levels of complexity to calibrate, validate and improve agroecosystem models to enhance their reliability for regional impact assessment. A methodological framework and software are presented to evaluate and classify data sets into four classes regarding their suitability for different modelling purposes. Weighting of inputs and variables for testing was set from the aspect of crop modelling. The software allows users to adjust weights according to their specific requirements. Background information is given for the variables with respect to their relevance for modelling and possible uncertainties. Examples are given for data sets of the different classes. The framework helps to assemble high quality data bases, to select data from data bases according to modellers requirements and gives guidelines to experimentalists for experimental design and decide on the most effective measurements to improve the usefulness of their data for modelling, statistical analysis and data assimilation. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. |
| 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 |
4563 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Elliott, J.; Müller, C.; Deryng, D.; Chryssanthacopoulos, J.; Boote, K.J.; Büchner, M.; Foster, I.; Glotter, M.; Heinke, J.; Iizumi, T.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Mueller, N.D.; Ray, D.K.; Rosenzweig, C.; Ruane, A.C.; Sheffield, J. |
| Title |
The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0) |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Geoscientific Model Development |
Abbreviated Journal |
Geosci. Model Dev. |
| Volume |
8 |
Issue |
2 |
Pages |
261-277 |
| Keywords |
land-surface model; climate-change; systems simulation; high-resolution; water; carbon; yield; agriculture; patterns; growth |
| Abstract |
We present protocols and input data for Phase 1 of the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison, a project of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). The project includes global simulations of yields, phenologies, and many land-surface fluxes using 12-15 modeling groups for many crops, climate forcing data sets, and scenarios over the historical period from 1948 to 2012. The primary outcomes of the project include (1) a detailed comparison of the major differences and similarities among global models commonly used for large-scale climate impact assessment, (2) an evaluation of model and ensemble hindcasting skill, (3) quantification of key uncertainties from climate input data, model choice, and other sources, and (4) a multi-model analysis of the agricultural impacts of large-scale climate extremes from the historical record. |
| 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 |
1991-9603 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4559 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Bassu, S.; Brisson, N.; Durand, J.-L.; Boote, K.; Lizaso, J.; Jones, J.W.; Rosenzweig, C.; Ruane, A.C.; Adam, M.; Baron, C.; Basso, B.; Biernath, C.; Boogaard, H.; Conijn, S.; Corbeels, M.; Deryng, D.; De Sanctis, G.; Gayler, S.; Grassini, P.; Hatfield, J.; Hoek, S.; Izaurralde, C.; Jongschaap, R.; Kemanian, A.R.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Kim, S.-H.; Kumar, N.S.; Makowski, D.; Müller, C.; Nendel, C.; Priesack, E.; Pravia, M.V.; Sau, F.; Shcherbak, I.; Tao, F.; Teixeira, E.; Timlin, D.; Waha, K. |
| Title |
How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Global Change Biology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Glob. Chang. Biol. |
| Volume |
20 |
Issue |
7 |
Pages |
2301-2320 |
| Keywords |
Carbon Dioxide/metabolism; *Climate Change; Crops, Agricultural/growth & development/metabolism; Geography; Models, Biological; Temperature; Water/*metabolism; Zea mays/*growth & development/*metabolism; AgMIP; [Co2]; climate; maize; model intercomparison; simulation; uncertainty |
| Abstract |
Potential consequences of climate change on crop production can be studied using mechanistic crop simulation models. While a broad variety of maize simulation models exist, it is not known whether different models diverge on grain yield responses to changes in climatic factors, or whether they agree in their general trends related to phenology, growth, and yield. With the goal of analyzing the sensitivity of simulated yields to changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO2 ], we present the largest maize crop model intercomparison to date, including 23 different models. These models were evaluated for four locations representing a wide range of maize production conditions in the world: Lusignan (France), Ames (USA), Rio Verde (Brazil) and Morogoro (Tanzania). While individual models differed considerably in absolute yield simulation at the four sites, an ensemble of a minimum number of models was able to simulate absolute yields accurately at the four sites even with low data for calibration, thus suggesting that using an ensemble of models has merit. Temperature increase had strong negative influence on modeled yield response of roughly -0.5 Mg ha(-1) per °C. Doubling [CO2 ] from 360 to 720 μmol mol(-1) increased grain yield by 7.5% on average across models and the sites. That would therefore make temperature the main factor altering maize yields at the end of this century. Furthermore, there was a large uncertainty in the yield response to [CO2 ] among models. Model responses to temperature and [CO2 ] did not differ whether models were simulated with low calibration information or, simulated with high level of calibration information. |
| 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 |
1354-1013 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4510 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Wallach, D.; Nissanka, S.P.; Karunaratne, A.S.; Weerakoon, W.M.W.; Thorburn, P.J.; Boote, K.J.; Jones, J.W. |
| Title |
Accounting for both parameter and model structure uncertainty in crop model predictions of phenology: A case study on rice |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
European Journal of Agronomy |
| Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
| Keywords |
Uncertainty; Phenology; Parameter uncertainty; Multi-model ensemble; Generalized least squares; Rice; Crop model; APSIM; DSSAT |
| Abstract |
We consider predictions of the impact of climate warming on rice development times in Sri Lanka. The major emphasis is on the uncertainty of the predictions, and in particular on the estimation of mean squared error of prediction. Three contributions to mean squared error are considered. The first is parameter uncertainty that results from model calibration. To take proper account of the complex data structure, generalized least squares is used to estimate the parameters and the variance-covariance matrix of the parameter estimators. The second contribution is model structure uncertainty, which we estimate using two different models. An ANOVA analysis is used to separate the contributions of parameter and model uncertainty to mean squared error. The third contribution is model error, which is estimated using hindcasts. Mean squared error of prediction of time from emergence to maturity, for baseline +2 °C, is estimated as 108 days2, with model error contributing 86 days2, followed by model structure uncertainty which contributes 15 days2 and parameter uncertainty which contributes 7 days2. We also show how prediction uncertainty is reduced if prediction concerns development time averaged over years, or the difference in development time between baseline and warmer temperatures. |
| Address |
2016-09-13 |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
Language |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
1161-0301 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
CropM |
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM; wos; ftnotmacsur; wsnotyet; |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4777 |
| Permanent link to this record |
