| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–13] |
|
| Records | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Bassu, S.; Brisson, N.; Durand, J.-L.; Boote, K.; Lizaso, J.; Jones, J.W.; Rosenzweig, C.; Ruane, A.C.; Adam, M.; Baron, C.; Basso, B.; Biernath, C.; Boogaard, H.; Conijn, S.; Corbeels, M.; Deryng, D.; De Sanctis, G.; Gayler, S.; Grassini, P.; Hatfield, J.; Hoek, S.; Izaurralde, C.; Jongschaap, R.; Kemanian, A.R.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Kim, S.-H.; Kumar, N.S.; Makowski, D.; Müller, C.; Nendel, C.; Priesack, E.; Pravia, M.V.; Sau, F.; Shcherbak, I.; Tao, F.; Teixeira, E.; Timlin, D.; Waha, K. | ||||
Title  |
How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2014 | Publication | Global Change Biology | Abbreviated Journal | Glob. Chang. Biol. |
| Volume | 20 | Issue | 7 | Pages | 2301-2320 |
| Keywords | Carbon Dioxide/metabolism; *Climate Change; Crops, Agricultural/growth & development/metabolism; Geography; Models, Biological; Temperature; Water/*metabolism; Zea mays/*growth & development/*metabolism; AgMIP; [Co2]; climate; maize; model intercomparison; simulation; uncertainty | ||||
| Abstract | Potential consequences of climate change on crop production can be studied using mechanistic crop simulation models. While a broad variety of maize simulation models exist, it is not known whether different models diverge on grain yield responses to changes in climatic factors, or whether they agree in their general trends related to phenology, growth, and yield. With the goal of analyzing the sensitivity of simulated yields to changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO2 ], we present the largest maize crop model intercomparison to date, including 23 different models. These models were evaluated for four locations representing a wide range of maize production conditions in the world: Lusignan (France), Ames (USA), Rio Verde (Brazil) and Morogoro (Tanzania). While individual models differed considerably in absolute yield simulation at the four sites, an ensemble of a minimum number of models was able to simulate absolute yields accurately at the four sites even with low data for calibration, thus suggesting that using an ensemble of models has merit. Temperature increase had strong negative influence on modeled yield response of roughly -0.5 Mg ha(-1) per °C. Doubling [CO2 ] from 360 to 720 μmol mol(-1) increased grain yield by 7.5% on average across models and the sites. That would therefore make temperature the main factor altering maize yields at the end of this century. Furthermore, there was a large uncertainty in the yield response to [CO2 ] among models. Model responses to temperature and [CO2 ] did not differ whether models were simulated with low calibration information or, simulated with high level of calibration information. | ||||
| 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 | 1354-1013 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4510 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Müller, C. | ||||
| Title |
Impacts of Climate Change and Agricultural Modeling | Type | Conference Article | ||
| Year | 2014 | Publication | Abbreviated Journal | ||
| Volume | Issue | Pages | |||
| Keywords | CropM | ||||
| 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 | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | Capacity Building Workshop for Regional Scientists Turn Down the Heat III: Regional Analysis (MNA/LAC/ECA), The Case for Resilience, Potsdam, Germany, 2014-03-11 to 2014-03-13 | ||
| Notes | Approved | no | |||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 2669 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Challinor, A.J.; Müller, C.; Asseng, S.; Deva, C.; Nicklin, K.J.; Wallach, D.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Whitfield, S.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Koehler, A.-K. | ||||
| Title |
Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2017 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal | Agric. Syst. |
| Volume | 159 | Issue | Pages | 296-306 | |
| Keywords | Crop model; Risk assessment; Climate change impacts; Adaptation; Climate models; Uncertainty | ||||
| Abstract | Highlights • 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments Abstract Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper. |
||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | phase 2+ | Original Title | ||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | 0308521x | ISBN | Medium | ||
| Area | CropM | Expedition | Conference | ||
| Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5175 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Kollas, C.; Kersebaum, C.; Bindi, M.; Wu, L.; Sharif, B.; Öztürk, I.; Trnka, M.; Hlavinka, P.; Nendel, C.; Palosuo, T.; Müller, C.; Waha, K.; Herrera, C.; Olesen, E.; Eitzinger, J.; Roggero, P.-P.; Conradt, T.; Martre, P.; Ferrise, R.; Moriondo, M.; Ramos, M.; Ventrella, D.; Rötter, P.; Wegehenkel, M.; Eckersten, H.; Torres, I.; Hernandez, C.; Launay, M.; Witt, A.; Hoffmann, H. | ||||
| Title |
Improving yield predictions by crop rotation modelling? a multi-model comparison | Type | Conference Article | ||
| Year | 2014 | Publication | Abbreviated Journal | ||
| Volume | Issue | Pages | |||
| Keywords | CropM | ||||
| 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 | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | MACSUR CropM International Symposium and Workshop: Modelling climate change impacts on crop production for food security, Oslo, Norway, 2014-02-10 to 2014-02-12 | ||
| Notes | Approved | no | |||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 2560 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Humpenöder, F.; Popp, A.; Dietrich, J.P.; Klein, D.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Bonsch, M.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Weindl, I.; Stevanovic, M.; Müller, C. | ||||
| Title |
Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2014 | Publication | Environmental Research Letters | Abbreviated Journal | Environ. Res. Lett. |
| Volume | 9 | Issue | 6 | Pages | 064029 |
| Keywords | climate change mitigation; afforestation; bioenergy; carbon capture and storage; land-use modeling; land-based mitigation; carbon sequestration; land-use change; crop productivity; carbon capture; energy; storage; model; food; conservation; agriculture; scenarios | ||||
| Abstract | The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600-700 GtCO(2)), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO(2)) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial. | ||||
| 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 | 1748-9326 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, TradeM | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4627 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||