|   | 
Details
   web
Records
Author Cammarano, D.; Rötter, R.P.; Asseng, S.; Ewert, F.; Wallach, D.; Martre, P.; Hatfield, J.L.; Jones, J.W.; Rosenzweig, C.; Ruane, A.C.; Boote, K.J.; Thorburn, P.J.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Angulo, C.; Basso, B.; Bertuzzi, P.; Biernath, C.; Brisson, N.; Challinor, A.J.; Doltra, J.; Gayler, S.; Goldberg, R.; Heng, L.; Hooker, J.E.; Hunt, L.A.; Ingwersen, J.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Müller, C.; Kumar, S.N.; Nendel, C.; O’Leary, G.; Olesen, J.E.; Osborne, T.M.; Priesack, E.; Ripoche, D.; Steduto, P.; Stöckle, C.O.; Stratonovitch, P.; Streck, T.; Supit, I.; Tao, F.; Travasso, M.; Waha, K.; White, J.W.; Wolf, J.
Title Uncertainty of wheat water use: Simulated patterns and sensitivity to temperature and CO2 Type Journal Article
Year (down) 2016 Publication Field Crops Research Abbreviated Journal Field Crops Research
Volume 198 Issue Pages 80-92
Keywords Multi-model simulation; Transpiration efficiency; Water use; Uncertainty; Sensitivity
Abstract Projected global warming and population growth will reduce future water availability for agriculture. Thus, it is essential to increase the efficiency in using water to ensure crop productivity. Quantifying crop water use (WU; i.e. actual evapotranspiration) is a critical step towards this goal. Here, sixteen wheat simulation models were used to quantify sources of model uncertainty and to estimate the relative changes and variability between models for simulated WU, water use efficiency (WUE, WU per unit of grain dry mass produced), transpiration efficiency (Teff, transpiration per kg of unit of grain yield dry mass produced), grain yield, crop transpiration and soil evaporation at increased temperatures and elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations ([CO2]). The greatest uncertainty in simulating water use, potential evapotranspiration, crop transpiration and soil evaporation was due to differences in how crop transpiration was modelled and accounted for 50% of the total variability among models. The simulation results for the sensitivity to temperature indicated that crop WU will decline with increasing temperature due to reduced growing seasons. The uncertainties in simulated crop WU, and in particularly due to uncertainties in simulating crop transpiration, were greater under conditions of increased temperatures and with high temperatures in combination with elevated atmospheric [CO2] concentrations. Hence the simulation of crop WU, and in particularly crop transpiration under higher temperature, needs to be improved and evaluated with field measurements before models can be used to simulate climate change impacts on future crop water demand.
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, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4786
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 (down) 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.; Nissanka, S.P.; Karunaratne, A.S.; Weerakoon, W.M.W.; Thorburn, P.J.; Boote, K.J.; Jones, J.W.
Title Accounting for both parameter and model structure uncertainty in crop model predictions of phenology: A case study on rice Type Journal Article
Year (down) 2016 Publication European Journal of Agronomy Abbreviated Journal European Journal of Agronomy
Volume Issue Pages
Keywords Uncertainty; Phenology; Parameter uncertainty; Multi-model ensemble; Generalized least squares; Rice; Crop model; APSIM; DSSAT
Abstract We consider predictions of the impact of climate warming on rice development times in Sri Lanka. The major emphasis is on the uncertainty of the predictions, and in particular on the estimation of mean squared error of prediction. Three contributions to mean squared error are considered. The first is parameter uncertainty that results from model calibration. To take proper account of the complex data structure, generalized least squares is used to estimate the parameters and the variance-covariance matrix of the parameter estimators. The second contribution is model structure uncertainty, which we estimate using two different models. An ANOVA analysis is used to separate the contributions of parameter and model uncertainty to mean squared error. The third contribution is model error, which is estimated using hindcasts. Mean squared error of prediction of time from emergence to maturity, for baseline +2 °C, is estimated as 108 days2, with model error contributing 86 days2, followed by model structure uncertainty which contributes 15 days2 and parameter uncertainty which contributes 7 days2. We also show how prediction uncertainty is reduced if prediction concerns development time averaged over years, or the difference in development time between baseline and warmer temperatures.
Address 2016-09-13
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language Language Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 1161-0301 ISBN Medium Article
Area CropM Expedition Conference
Notes CropM; wos; ftnotmacsur; wsnotyet; Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4777
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 (down) 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 Wallach, D.; Thorburn, P.; Asseng, S.; Challinor, A.J.; Ewert, F.; Jones, J.W.; Rötter, R.P.; Ruane, A.
Title A framework for evaluating uncertainty in crop model predictions Type Conference Article
Year (down) 2016 Publication Abbreviated Journal
Volume Issue Pages
Keywords
Abstract
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Berlin (Germany) Editor
Language Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN ISBN Medium
Area Expedition Conference International Crop Modelling Symposium iCROPM 2016, 2016-05-15 to 2016-05-17, Berlin, Germany
Notes Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4925
Permanent link to this record