| |
Records |
Links  |
|
Author |
Kersebaum, K.-C.; Wallor, E.; Ventrella, D.; Cammarano, D.; Choucheney, E.; Ewert, F.; Ferrise, R.; Gaiser, T.; Garofalo, P.; Giglio, L.; Giola, P.; Hoffmann, M.; Laan, M.; Lewan, E.; Maharjan, G.R.; Moriondo, M.; Mula, L.; Nendel, C.; Pohankova, E.; Roggero, P.P.; Trnka, M.; Trombi, G. |
|
| |
Title |
Comparison of site sensitivity of crop models using spatially variable field data from Precision Agriculture |
Type |
Report |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
10 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
C1.1-D2 |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
Site conditions and soil properties have a strong influence on impacts of climate change on crop production. Vulnerability of crop production to changing climate conditions is highly determined by the ability of the site to buffer periods of adverse climatic situations like water scarcity or excessive rainfall. Therefore, the capability of models to reflect crop responses and water and nutrient dynamics under different site conditions is essential to assess climate impact even on a regional scale. To test and improve sensitivity of models to various site properties such as soil variability and hydrological boundary conditions, spatial variable data sets from precision farming of two fields in Germany and Italy were provided to modellers. For the German 20 ha field soil and management data for 60 grid points for 3 years (2 years wheat, 1 year triticale) were provided. For the Italian field (12 ha) information for 100 grid points were available for three growing seasons of durum wheat. Modellers were asked to run their models using a) the model specific procedure to estimate soil hydraulic properties from texture using their standard procedure and use in step b) fixed values for field capacity and wilting point derived from soil taxonomy. Only the phenology and crop yield of one grid point provided for a basic calibration. In step c) information for all grid points of the first year (yield, soil water and mineral N content for Germany, yield, biomass and LAI for Italy) were provided. First results of five out of twelve participating models are compared against measured state variables analysing their site specific response and consistency across crop and soil variables. (Main text to be published in a peer-reviewed journal) |
|
| |
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 |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Abstract |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4951 |
|
| 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 |
Ruane, A.C.; Hudson, N.I.; Asseng, S.; Camarrano, D.; Ewert, F.; Martre, P.; Boote, K.J.; Thorburn, P.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Angulo, C.; Basso, B.; Bertuzzi, P.; Biernath, C.; Brisson, N.; Challinor, &rew J.; Doltra, J.; Gayler, S.; Goldberg, R.; Grant, R.F.; Heng, L.; Hooker, J.; Hunt, L.A.; Ingwersen, J.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Kumar, S.N.; Müller, C.; Nendel, C.; O’Leary, G.; Olesen, J.E.; Osborne, T.M.; Palosuo, T.; Priesack, E.; Ripoche, D.; Rötter, R.P.; Semenov, M.A.; Shcherbak, I.; Steduto, P.; Stöckle, C.O.; Stratonovitch, P.; Streck, T.; Supit, I.; Tao, F.; Travasso, M.; Waha, K.; Wallach, D.; White, J.W.; Wolf, J. |
|
| |
Title |
Multi-wheat-model ensemble responses to interannual climate variability |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Environmental Modelling & Software |
Abbreviated Journal |
Env. Model. Softw. |
|
| |
Volume |
81 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
86-101 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Crop modeling; Uncertainty; Multi-model ensemble; Wheat; AgMIP; Climate; impacts; Temperature; Precipitation; lnterannual variability; simulation-model; crop model; nitrogen dynamics; winter-wheat; large-area; systems simulation; farming systems; yield response; growth; water |
|
| |
Abstract |
We compare 27 wheat models’ yield responses to interannual climate variability, analyzed at locations in Argentina, Australia, India, and The Netherlands as part of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Wheat Pilot. Each model simulated 1981-2010 grain yield, and we evaluate results against the interannual variability of growing season temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation. The amount of information used for calibration has only a minor effect on most models’ climate response, and even small multi-model ensembles prove beneficial. Wheat model clusters reveal common characteristics of yield response to climate; however models rarely share the same cluster at all four sites indicating substantial independence. Only a weak relationship (R-2 <= 0.24) was found between the models’ sensitivities to interannual temperature variability and their response to long-term warming, suggesting that additional processes differentiate climate change impacts from observed climate variability analogs and motivating continuing analysis and model development efforts. Published by Elsevier Ltd. |
|
| |
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 |
4769 |
|
| 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 |
Webber, H.; Ewert, F.; Kimball, B.A.; Siebert, S.; White, J.W.; Wall, G.W.; Ottman, M.J.; Trawally, D.N.A.; Gaiser, T. |
|
| |
Title |
Simulating canopy temperature for modelling heat stress in cereals |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Environmental Modelling & Software |
Abbreviated Journal |
Env. Model. Softw. |
|
| |
Volume |
77 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
143-155 |
|
| |
Keywords |
canopy temperature; heat stress; cereals; crop models; profile relationships; crop production; climate-change; spring wheat; field plots; growth; maize; water; yields; variability |
|
| |
Abstract |
Crop models must be improved to account for the effects of heat stress events on crop yields. To date, most approaches in crop models use air temperature to define heat stress intensity as the cumulative sum of thermal times (TT) above a high temperature threshold during a sensitive period for yield formation. However, observational evidence indicates that crop canopy temperature better explains yield reductions associated with high temperature events than air temperature does. This study presents a canopy level energy balance using Monin ObukhovSimilarity Theory (MOST) with simplifications about the canopy resistance that render it suitable for application in crop models and other models of the plant environment. The model is evaluated for a uniform irrigated wheat canopy in Arizona and rainfed maize in Burkina Faso. No single variable regression relationships for key explanatory variables were found that were consistent across sowing dates to explain the deviation of canopy temperature from air temperature. Finally, thermal times determined with simulated canopy temperatures were able to reproduce thermal times calculated with observed canopy temperature, whereas those determined with air temperatures were not. (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 |
4730 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
