| Home | << 1 2 3 4 >> |
|
| 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 | 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 | Porter, J.R.; Xie, L.; Challinor, A.J.; Cochrane, K.; Howden, S.M.; Iqbal, M.M.; Lobell, D.B.; Travasso, M.I. | ||||
| Title | Food security and food production systems | Type | Book Chapter | ||
| Year | 2014 | Publication | Abbreviated Journal | ||
| Volume | Issue | Pages |
485-533 | ||
| Keywords | CropM | ||||
| Abstract | |||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press | Place of Publication | Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA | Editor | Field, C.B.; Barros, V.R.; Dokken, D.J.; Mach, K.J.; Mastrandrea, M.D.; Bilir, T.E.; Chatterjee, M.; Ebi, K.L.; Estrada, Y.O.; Genova, R.C.; Girma, B.; Kissel, E.S.; Levy, A.N.; MacCracken, S.; Mastrandrea, P.R.; White, L.L. |
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) | Abbreviated Series Title | ||
| Series Volume | Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vuln | Series Issue | Edition | ||
| ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | Approved | no | |||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 2734 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Makowski, D.; Asseng, S.; Ewert, F.; Bassu, S.; Durand, J.L.; Li, T.; Martre, P.; Adam, M.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Angulo, C.; Baron, C.; Basso, B.; Bertuzzi, P.; Biernath, C.; Boogaard, H.; Boote, K.J.; Bouman, B.; Bregaglio, S.; Brisson, N.; Buis, S.; Cammarano, D.; Challinor, A.J.; Confalonieri, R.; Conijn, J.G.; Corbeels, M.; Deryng, D.; De Sanctis, G.; Doltra, J.; Fumoto, T.; Gaydon, D.; Gayler, S.; Goldberg, R.; Grant, R.F.; Grassini, P.; Hatfield, J.L.; Hasegawa, T.; Heng, L.; Hoek, S.; Hooker, J.; Hunt, L.A.; Ingwersen, J.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Jongschaap, R.E.E.; Jones, J.W.; Kemanian, R.A.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Kim, S.-H.; Lizaso, J.; Marcaida, M.; Müller, C.; Nakagawa, H.; Naresh Kumar, S.; Nendel, C.; O’Leary, G.J.; Olesen, J.E.; Oriol, P.; Osborne, T.M.; Palosuo, T.; Pravia, M.V.; Priesack, E.; Ripoche, D.; Rosenzweig, C.; Ruane, A.C.; Ruget, F.; Sau, F.; Semenov, M.A.; Shcherbak, I.; Singh, B.; Singh, U.; Soo, H.K.; Steduto, P.; Stöckle, C.; Stratonovitch, P.; Streck, T.; Supit, I.; Tang, L.; Tao, F.; Teixeira, E.I.; Thorburn, P.; Timlin, D.; Travasso, M.; Rötter, R.P.; Waha, K.; Wallach, D.; White, J.W.; Wilkens, P.; Williams, J.R.; Wolf, J.; Yin, X.; Yoshida, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, Y. | ||||
| Title | A statistical analysis of three ensembles of crop model responses to temperature and CO2 concentration | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2015 | Publication | Agricultural and Forest Meteorology | Abbreviated Journal | Agricultural and Forest Meteorology |
| Volume | 214-215 | Issue | Pages |
483-493 | |
| Keywords | climate change; crop model; emulator; meta-model; statistical model; yield; climate-change; wheat yields; metaanalysis; uncertainty; simulation; impacts | ||||
| Abstract | Ensembles of process-based crop models are increasingly used to simulate crop growth for scenarios of temperature and/or precipitation changes corresponding to different projections of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This approach generates large datasets with thousands of simulated crop yield data. Such datasets potentially provide new information but it is difficult to summarize them in a useful way due to their structural complexities. An associated issue is that it is not straightforward to compare crops and to interpolate the results to alternative climate scenarios not initially included in the simulation protocols. Here we demonstrate that statistical models based on random-coefficient regressions are able to emulate ensembles of process-based crop models. An important advantage of the proposed statistical models is that they can interpolate between temperature levels and between CO2 concentration levels, and can thus be used to calculate temperature and [CO2] thresholds leading to yield loss or yield gain, without rerunning the original complex crop models. Our approach is illustrated with three yield datasets simulated by 19 maize models, 26 wheat models, and 13 rice models. Several statistical models are fitted to these datasets, and are then used to analyze the variability of the yield response to [CO2] and temperature. Based on our results, we show that, for wheat, a [CO2] increase is likely to outweigh the negative effect of a temperature increase of +2 degrees C in the considered sites. Compared to wheat, required levels of [CO2] increase are much higher for maize, and intermediate for rice. For all crops, uncertainties in simulating climate change impacts increase more with temperature than with elevated [CO2]. | ||||
| 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 | 0168-1923 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4714 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| 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 | |||||