| Records |
| Author |
Liu, B.; Asseng, S.; Müller, C.; Ewert, F.; Elliott, J.; Lobell, D. B.; Martre, P.; Ruane, A. C.; Wallach, D.; Jones, J. W.; Rosenzweig, C.; Aggarwal, P. K.; Alderman, P. D.; Anothai, J.; Basso, B.; Biernath, C.; Cammarano, D.; Challinor, A.; Deryng, D.; Sanctis, G. D.; Doltra, J.; Fereres, E.; Folberth, C.; Garcia-Vila, M.; Gayler, S.; Hoogenboom, G.; Hunt, L. A.; Izaurralde, R. C.; Jabloun, M.; Jones, C. D.; Kersebaum, K. C.; Kimball, B. A.; Koehler, A.-K.; Kumar, S. N.; Nendel, C.; O’Leary, G. J.; Olesen, J. E.; Ottman, M. J.; Palosuo, T.; Prasad, P. V. V.; Priesack, E.; Pugh, T. A. M.; Reynolds, M.; Rezaei, E. E.; Rötter, R. P.; Schmid, E.; Semenov, M. A.; Shcherbak, I.; Stehfest, E.; Stöckle, C. O.; Stratonovitch, P.; Streck, T.; Supit, I.; Tao, F.; Thorburn, P.; Waha, K.; Wall, G. W.; Wang, E.; White, J. W.; Wolf, J.; Zhao, Z.; Zhu, Y. |
| Title |
Similar estimates of temperature impacts on global wheat yield by three independent methods |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Nature Climate Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Nat. Clim. Change |
| Volume |
6 |
Issue |
12 |
Pages |
1130-1136 |
| Keywords |
|
Abstract  |
|
| 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 |
1758-678x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4965 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Acharya, T.; Fanzo, J.; Gustafson, D.; Ingram, J.; Schneeman, B.; Allen, L.; Boote, K.; Drewnowski, A.; Ewert, F.; Hall, S.; Hendley, P.; Howden, M.; Janssen, S.; Jones, J.; Latulippe, M.; Lotze-Campen, H.; McDermott, J.; Meijl, H.V.; Nelson, G.; Newsome, R.; Roulin, A.; Scholes, B.; Tanumihardjo, S.; Tavill, G.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Wiebe, K. |
| Title |
Assessing Sustainable Nutrition Security: The Role of Food Systems: Working Paper |
Type |
Report |
| Year |
2014 |
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
| Keywords |
ftnotmacsur |
| Abstract |
|
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
Washington, D.C., U.S.A. |
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
ILSI Research Foundation: Center for Integrated Modeling of Sustainable Agriculture and Nutrition Security |
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
TradeM |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4995 |
| 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 |
Wallach, D.; Thorburn, P.; Asseng, S.; Challinor, A.J.; Ewert, F.; Jones, J.W.; Rötter, R.; Ruane, A. |
| Title |
Overview paper on comprehensive framework for assessment of error and uncertainty in crop model predictions |
Type |
Report |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
8 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
C4.1-D |
| Keywords |
MACSUR_ACK; CropM |
| 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. Several ways of quantifying prediction uncertainty have been explored in the literature, but there have been no studies of how the different approaches are related to one another, and how they are related to some overall measure of prediction uncertainty. Here we show that all the different approaches can be related to two different viewpoints about the model; either the model is treated as a fixed predictor with some average error, or the model can be treated as a random variable with uncertainty in one or more of model structure, model inputs and model parameters. We discuss the differences, and show how mean squared error of prediction can be estimated in both cases. The results can be used to put uncertainty estimates into a more general framework and to relate different uncertainty estimates to one another and to overall prediction uncertainty. This should lead to a better understanding of crop model prediction uncertainty and the underlying causes of that uncertainty. This study was published as (Wallach et al. 2016) |
| 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 |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ office @ |
Serial |
2954 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Boote, K.J.; Porter, C.; Jones, J.W.; Thorburn, P.J.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Hoogenboom, G.; White, J.W.; Hatfield, J.L. |
| Title |
Sentinel site data for crop model improvement—definition and characterization |
Type |
Book Chapter |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Improving Modeling Tools to Assess Climate Change Effects on Crop Response |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
Crop models are increasingly being used to assess the impacts of future climate change on production and food security. High quality, site-specific data on weather, soils, management, and cultivar are needed for those model applications. Also important is that model development, evaluation, improvement, and calibration require additional high quality, site-specific measurements on crop yield, growth, phenology, and ancillary traits. We review the evolution of minimum data set requirements for agroecosystem modeling and then describe the characteristics and ranking of sentinel site data needed for crop model improvement, calibration, and application. We in the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), propose to rank sentinel site data sets as platinum, gold, silver, and copper, based on the degree of true site-specific measurement of weather, soils, management, crop yield, as well as the quality, comprehensiveness, quantity, accuracy, and value. For example, to be ranked platinum, the weather and soil characterization must be measured on-site, and all management inputs must be known. Dataset ranking will be lower for weather measured off-site or soil traits estimated from soil mapping. Ranking also depends on the intended purposes for data use. If the purpose is to improve a crop model for response to water or N, then additional observations are necessary, such as initial soil water, initial soil inorganic N, and plant N uptake during the growing season to be ranked platinum. Rankings are enhanced by presence of multiple treatments and sites. Examples of platinum-, gold-, and silver-quality data sets for model improvement and calibration uses are illustrated. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
Hatfield, J.L.; Fleisher, D. |
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
Advances in Agricultural Systems Modeling |
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
7 |
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4980 |
| Permanent link to this record |
