| |
Records |
Links |
|
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 |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Kersebaum, K.C.; Kollas, C.; Bindi, M.; Palosuo, T.; Wu, L.; Sharif, B.; Öztürk, I.; Trnka, M.; Hlavinka, P.; Nendel, C.; Müller, C.; Waha, K.; Armas-Herrera, C.; Olesen, J.E.; Eitzinger, J.; Roggero, P.P.; Conradt, T.; Martre, P.; Ferrise, R.; Moriondo, M.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Ventrella, D.; Rötter, R.P.; Wegehenkel, M.; Eckersten, H.; Lorite Torres, I.J.; Hernandez, C.G.; Launay, M.; De Wit, A.; Hoffmann, H.; Weigel, H.-J.; Manderscheid, R.; Beaudoin, N.; Constantin, J.; Garcia de Cortazar-Atauri, I.; Mary, B.; Ripoche, D.; Ruget, F. |
|
| |
Title |
Model inter-comparison on crop rotation effects – an intermediate report |
Type |
Conference Article |
| |
Year |
2014 |
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
Data of diverse crop rotations from five locations across Europe were distributed to modelers to investigate the capability of models to handle complex crop rotations and management interactions. Crop rotations comprise various main crops (winter/spring wheat, winter/spring barley, rye, oat, maize, sugar beet, oil seed rape and potatoes) plus several catch crops. The experimental setup of the datasets included treatments such as modified soils, crops exchanged within the rotations, irrigation/rainfed, nitrogen fertilization, residue management, tillage and atmospheric CO2 concentration. 19 modeling teams registered to model either the whole rotation or single crops. Models which are capable to run the whole rotation should provide transient as well as single year simulations with a reset of initial conditions. In the first step only initial soil conditions (water and soil mineral N) of the first year and key phenological stages were provided to the modelers. For calibration, crop yields and biomass were provided for selected years but not for all seasons. In total the combination of treatments and seasons results in 301 years of simulation. Results were analyzed to evaluate the effect of transient simulation versus single-year simulation regarding crop yield, biomass, water and nitrogen balance components. Model results will be evaluated crop-specifically to identify crops with highest uncertainty and potential for model improvement. Full data will be provided to modelers for model-improvement and results will provide insights into model capabilities to reproduce treatments and crops. Further, the question of error propagation along the transient simulation of crop rotations will be addressed. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference |
|
| |
Series Volume |
3(S) Sassari, Italy |
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 2014-04-01 to 2014-04-04, Sassari, Italy |
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5104 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Ferrise, R.; Moriondo, M.; Pasqui, M.; Primicerio, J.; Toscano, P.; Semenov, M.; Bindi, M. |
|
| |
Title |
Within-season predictions of durum wheat yield over the Mediterranean Basin |
Type |
Conference Article |
| |
Year |
2014 |
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
Crop yield is the result of the interactions between weather in the incoming season and how farmers decide to manage and protect their crops. According to Jones et al. (2000), uncertainties in the weather of the forthcoming season leads farmers to lose some productivity by taking management decisions based on their own experience of the climate or by adopting conservative strategies aimed at reducing the risks. Accordingly, predicting crop yield in advance, in response to different managements, environments and weathers would assist farm-management decisions(Lawless and Semenov, 2005). Following the approach described by Semenov and Doblas-Reyes (2007), this study aimed at assessing the utility of different seasonal forecasting methodologies in predicting durum wheat yield at 10 different sites across the Mediterranean Basin. The crop model, SiriusQuality (Martre et al., 2006), was used to compute wheat yield over a 10-years period. First, the model was run with a set of observed weather data to calculate the reference yield distributions. Then, starting from 1st January, yield predictions were produced at a monthly time-step using seasonal forecasts. The results were compared with the reference yields to assess the efficacy of the forecasting methodologies to estimate within-season yields. The results indicate that durum wheat phenology and yield can be accurately predicted under Mediterranean conditions well before crop maturity, although some differences between the sites and the forecasting methodologies were revealed. Useful information can be thus provided for helping farmers to reduce negative impacts or take advantage from favorable conditions. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference |
|
| |
Series Volume |
3(S) Sassari, Italy |
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 2014-04-01 to 2014-04-04, Sassari, Italy |
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5142 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Webber, H.; White, J.W.; Kimball, B.A.; Ewert, F.; Asseng, S.; Rezaei, E.E.; Pinter, P.J., Jr.; Hatfield, J.L.; Reynolds, M.P.; Ababaei, B.; Bindi, M.; Doltra, J.; Ferrise, R.; Kage, H.; Kassie, B.T.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Luig, A.; Olesen, J.E.; Semenov, M.A.; Stratonovitch, P.; Ratjen, A.M.; LaMorte, R.L.; Leavitt, S.W.; Hunsaker, D.J.; Wall, G.W.; Martre, P. |
|
| |
Title |
Physical robustness of canopy temperature models for crop heat stress simulation across environments and production conditions |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2018 |
Publication |
Field Crops Research |
Abbreviated Journal |
Field Crops Research |
|
| |
Volume |
216 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
75-88 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Heat stress; Crop model improvement; Heat and drought interactions; Climate change impact assessments; Canopy temperature; Wheat; Air CO2 Enrichment; Elevated Carbon-Dioxide; Water-Use Efficiency; Climate-Change; Wheat Evapotranspiration; Stomatal Conductance; Multimodel Ensembles; Farming Systems; Drought-Stress; Spring Wheat |
|
| |
Abstract |
Despite widespread application in studying climate change impacts, most crop models ignore complex interactions among air temperature, crop and soil water status, CO2 concentration and atmospheric conditions that influence crop canopy temperature. The current study extended previous studies by evaluating Tc simulations from nine crop models at six locations across environmental and production conditions. Each crop model implemented one of an empirical (EMP), an energy balance assuming neutral stability (EBN) or an energy balance correcting for atmospheric stability conditions (EBSC) approach to simulate Tc. Model performance in predicting Tc was evaluated for two experiments in continental North America with various water, nitrogen and CO2 treatments. An empirical model fit to one dataset had the best performance, followed by the EBSC models. Stability conditions explained much of the differences between modeling approaches. More accurate simulation of heat stress will likely require use of energy balance approaches that consider atmospheric stability conditions. |
|
| |
Address |
2018-02-19 |
|
| |
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, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5189 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Tao, F.; Palosuo, T.; Roetter, R.P.; Hernandez Diaz-Ambrona, C.G.; Ines Minguez, M.; Semenov, M.A.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Cammarano, D.; Specka, X.; Nendel, C.; Srivastava, A.K.; Ewert, F.; Padovan, G.; Ferrise, R.; Martre, P.; Rodriguez, L.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Gaiser, T.; Hohn, J.G.; Salo, T.; Dibari, C.; Schulman, A.H. |
|
| |
Title |
Why do crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections? A comprehensive analysis based on eight barley crop models |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2020 |
Publication |
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology |
|
| |
Volume |
281 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
107851 |
|
| |
Keywords |
agriculture; climate change; crop growth simulation; impact; model; improvement; uncertainty; air CO2 enrichment; elevated CO2; wheat growth; nitrogen dynamics; simulation-models; field experiment; atmospheric CO2; rice phenology; temperature; uncertainty |
|
| |
Abstract |
Robust projections of climate impact on crop growth and productivity by crop models are key to designing effective adaptations to cope with future climate risk. However, current crop models diverge strongly in their climate impact projections. Previous studies tried to compare or improve crop models regarding the impact of one single climate variable. However, this approach is insufficient, considering that crop growth and yield are affected by the interactive impacts of multiple climate change factors and multiple interrelated biophysical processes. Here, a new comprehensive analysis was conducted to look holistically at the reasons why crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections and to investigate which biophysical processes and knowledge gaps are key factors affecting this uncertainty and should be given the highest priorities for improvement. First, eight barley models and eight climate projections for the 2050s were applied to investigate the uncertainty from crop model structure in climate impact projections for barley growth and yield at two sites: Jokioinen, Finland (Boreal) and Lleida, Spain (Mediterranean). Sensitivity analyses were then conducted on the responses of major crop processes to major climatic variables including temperature, precipitation, irradiation, and CO2, as well as their interactions, for each of the eight crop models. The results showed that the temperature and CO2 relationships in the models were the major sources of the large discrepancies among the models in climate impact projections. In particular, the impacts of increases in temperature and CO2 on leaf area development were identified as the major causes for the large uncertainty in simulating changes in evapotranspiration, above-ground biomass, and grain yield. Our findings highlight that advancements in understanding the basic processes and thresholds by which climate warming and CO2 increases will affect leaf area development, crop evapotranspiration, photosynthesis, and grain formation in contrasting environments are needed for modeling their impacts. |
|
| |
Address |
2020-06-08 |
|
| |
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 |
article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5232 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
