| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Tao, F.; Roetter, R.P.; Palosuo, T.; Diaz-Ambrona, C.G.H.; Ines Minguez, M.; Semenov, M.A.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Nendel, C.; Cammarano, D.; Hoffmann, H.; Ewert, F.; Dambreville, A.; Martre, P.; Rodriguez, L.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Gaiser, T.; Hohn, J.G.; Salo, T.; Ferrise, R.; Bindi, M.; Schulman, A.H. |
|
| |
Title |
Designing future barley ideotypes using a crop model ensemble |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal  |
Europ. J. Agron. |
|
| |
Volume |
82 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
144-162 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Water-Use Efficiency; Climate-Change; Nitrogen Dynamics; Systems; Simulation; Wheat Cultivars; Grain Weight; Yield; Growth; Fertilization; Adaptation; Adaptation; Breeding; Climate change; Crop simulation models; Impact; Genotype; Genetic traits |
|
| |
Abstract |
Climate change and its associated higher frequency and severity of adverse weather events require genotypic adaptation. Process-based ecophysiological modelling offers a powerful means to better target and accelerate development of new crop cultivars. Barley (Hordeum vulgare L) is an important crop throughout the world, and a good model for study of the genetics of stress adaptation because many quantitative trait loci and candidate genes for biotic and abiotic stress tolerance have been identified in it. Here, we developed a new approach to design future crop ideotypes using an ensemble of eight barley simulation models (i.e. APSIM, CropSyst, HERMES, MCWLA, MONICA, SIMPLACE, Sirius Quality, and WOFOST), and applied it to design climate-resilient barley ideotypes for Boreal and Mediterranean climatic zones in Europe. The results showed that specific barley genotypes, represented by sets of cultivar parameters in the crop models, could be promising under future climate change conditions, resulting in increased yields and low inter-annual yield variability. In contrast, other genotypes could result in substantial yield declines. The most favorable climate-zone-specific barley ideotypes were further proposed, having combinations of several key genetic traits in terms of phenology, leaf growth, photosynthesis, drought tolerance, and grain formation. For both Boreal and Mediterranean climatic zones, barley ideotypes under future climatic conditions should have a longer reproductive growing period, lower leaf senescence rate, larger radiation use efficiency or maximum assimilation rate, and higher drought tolerance. Such characteristics can produce substantial positive impacts on yields under contrasting conditions. Moreover, barley ideotypes should have a low photoperiod and high vernalization sensitivity for the Boreal climatic zone; for the Mediterranean, in contrast, it should have a low photoperiod and low vernalization sensitivity. The drought-tolerance trait is more beneficial for the Mediterranean than for the Boreal climatic zone. Our study demonstrates a sound approach to design future barley ideotypes based on an ensemble of well-tested, diverse crop models and on integration of knowledge from multiple disciplines. The robustness of model-aided ideotypes design can be further enhanced by continuously improving crop models and enhancing information exchange between modellers, agro-meteorologists, geneticists, physiologists, and plant breeders. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. |
|
| |
Address |
2017-01-20 |
|
| |
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 |
1161-0301 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_MACSUR |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4935 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Ginaldi, F.; Bindi, M.; Marta, A.D.; Ferrise, R.; Orlandini, S.; Danuso, F. |
|
| |
Title |
Interoperability of agronomic long term experiment databases and crop model intercomparison: the Italian experience |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
Europ. J. Agron. |
|
| |
Volume |
77 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
209-222 |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
• ICFAR-DB organises and stores data from 16 Italian long term agronomic experiments. • ICFAR-DB fulfils interoperability using system dynamics ontology and AgMIP nomenclature. • ICFAR information management system moves closer data to model and vice versa. The IC-FAR national project (Linking long term observatories with crop system modelling for better understanding of climate change impact, and adaptation strategies for Italian cropping systems) initiated in 2013 with the primary aim of implementing data from 16 long term Italian agronomic experiments in a common, interoperable structure. The building of a common database (DB) structure demands a harmonization process aimed at standardising concepts, language and data in order to make them clear, and has to produce a well-documented and easily available tool for the whole scientific community. The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) has made a great effort in this sense, improving the vocabulary developed by the International Consortium for Agricultural Systems Applications (ICASA) and defining harmonization procedures. Nowadays, these ones have also to be addressed to facilitate the extraction of input files for crop model simulations. Substantially, two alternative directions can be pursued: adapting data to models, building a standard storage structure and using translators that convert DB information to model input files; or adapting models to data, using the same storage structure for feeding modelling solutions constituted by combining model components, re-implemented in the same model platform. The ICFAR information management system simplifies data entry, improves model input extraction (implementing System Dynamics ontology), and satisfies both the paradigms. This has required the development of different software tools: ICFAR-DB for data entry and storage; a model input extractor for feeding the crop models (MoLInEx); SEMoLa platform for building modelling solutions and performing via scripts the model intercomparison. The use of the standard AgMIP/ICASA nomenclature in the ICFAR-DB and the opportunity to create files with MoLInex for feeding AgMIP model translators allow full system interoperability. |
|
| |
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 |
1161-0301 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4972 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Kollas, C.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Nendel, C.; Manevski, K.; Müller, C.; Palosuo, T.; Armas-Herrera, C.M.; Beaudoin, N.; Bindi, M.; Charfeddine, M.; Conradt, T.; Constantin, J.; Eitzinger, J.; Ewert, F.; Ferrise, R.; Gaiser, T.; Cortazar-Atauri, I.G. de; Giglio, L.; Hlavinka, P.; Hoffmann, H.; Hoffmann, M.P.; Launay, M.; Manderscheid, R.; Mary, B.; Mirschel, W.; Moriondo, M.; Olesen, J.E.; Öztürk, I.; Pacholski, A.; Ripoche-Wachter, D.; Roggero, P.P.; Roncossek, S.; Rötter, R.P.; Ruget, F.; Sharif, B.; Trnka, M.; Ventrella, D.; Waha, K.; Wegehenkel, M.; Weigel, H.-J.; Wu, L. |
|
| |
Title |
Crop rotation modelling—A European model intercomparison |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2015 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
European Journal of Agronomy |
|
| |
Volume |
70 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
98-111 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Model ensemble; Crop simulation models; Catch crop; Intermediate crop; Treatment; Multi-year; long-term experiment; climate-change; wheat production; n-fertilization; systems simulation; nitrogen dynamics; tillage intensity; winter-wheat; soil carbon; growth |
|
| |
Abstract |
• First model inter-comparison on crop rotations. • Continuous simulation of multi-year crop rotations yields outperformed single-year simulation. • Low accuracy of yield predictions in less commonly modelled crops such as potato, radish, grass vegetation. • Multi-model mean prediction was found to minimise the likely error arising from single-model predictions. • The representation of intermediate crops and carry-over effects in the models require further research efforts.
Diversification of crop rotations is considered an option to increase the resilience of European crop production under climate change. So far, however, many crop simulation studies have focused on predicting single crops in separate one-year simulations. Here, we compared the capability of fifteen crop growth simulation models to predict yields in crop rotations at five sites across Europe under minimal calibration. Crop rotations encompassed 301 seasons of ten crop types common to European agriculture and a diverse set of treatments (irrigation, fertilisation, CO2 concentration, soil types, tillage, residues, intermediate or catch crops). We found that the continuous simulation of multi-year crop rotations yielded results of slightly higher quality compared to the simulation of single years and single crops. Intermediate crops (oilseed radish and grass vegetation) were simulated less accurately than main crops (cereals). The majority of models performed better for the treatments of increased CO2 and nitrogen fertilisation than for irrigation and soil-related treatments. The yield simulation of the multi-model ensemble reduced the error compared to single-model simulations. The low degree of superiority of continuous simulations over single year simulation was caused by (a) insufficiently parameterised crops, which affect the performance of the following crop, and (b) the lack of growth-limiting water and/or nitrogen in the crop rotations under investigation. In order to achieve a sound representation of crop rotations, further research is required to synthesise existing knowledge of the physiology of intermediate crops and of carry-over effects from the preceding to the following crop, and to implement/improve the modelling of processes that condition these effects. |
|
| |
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 |
1161-0301 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4660 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Rötter, R.P.; Palosuo, T.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Angulo, C.; Bindi, M.; Ewert, F.; Ferrise, R.; Hlavinka, P.; Moriondo, M.; Nendel, C.; Olesen, J.E.; Patil, R.H.; Ruget, F.; Takác, J.; Trnka, M. |
|
| |
Title |
Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2012 |
Publication |
Field Crops Research |
Abbreviated Journal |
Field Crops Research |
|
| |
Volume |
133 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
23-36 |
|
| |
Keywords |
climate; crop growth simulation; model comparison; spring barley; yield variability; uncertainty; change impacts; nitrogen dynamics; high-temperature; soil-moisture; elevated co2; ceres-wheat; data set; growth; drought; sensitivity |
|
| |
Abstract |
In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. |
|
| |
Address |
2016-10-31 |
|
| |
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, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4803 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Rötter, R.P.; Palosuo, T.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Angulo, C.; Bindi, M.; Ewert, F.; Ferrise, R.; Hlavinka, P.; Moriondo, M.; Olesen, J.E.; Takáč, J.; Trnka, M. |
|
| |
Title |
Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2012 |
Publication |
Field Crops Research |
Abbreviated Journal |
Field Crops Research |
|
| |
Volume |
133 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
23-36 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Climate; Crop growth simulation; Model comparison; Spring barley; Yield variability; Uncertainty; change impacts; nitrogen dynamics; high-temperature; soil-moisture; elevated co2; ceres-wheat; data set; growth; drought; sensitivity |
|
| |
Abstract |
► We compared nine crop simulation models for spring barley at seven sites in Europe. ► Applying crop models with restricted calibration leads to high uncertainties. ► Multi-crop model mean yield estimates were in good agreement with observations. ► The degree of uncertainty for simulated grain yield of barley was similar to winter wheat. ► We need more suitable data enabling us to verify different processes in the models. In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction. |
|
| |
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 |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4592 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
