|   | 
Details
   web
Records
Author Hoffmann, H.; Zhao, G.; Asseng, S.; Bindi, M.; Biernath, C.; Constantin, J.; Coucheney, E.; Dechow, R.; Doro, L.; Eckersten, H.; Gaiser, T.; Grosz, B.; Heinlein, F.; Kassie, B.T.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Klein, C.; Kuhnert, M.; Lewan, E.; Moriondo, M.; Nendel, C.; Priesack, E.; Raynal, H.; Roggero, P.P.; Rötter, R.P.; Siebert, S.; Specka, X.; Tao, F.; Teixeira, E.; Trombi, G.; Wallach, D.; Weihermüller, L.; Yeluripati, J.; Ewert, F.
Title Impact of spatial soil and climate input data aggregation on regional yield simulations Type Journal Article
Year 2016 Publication PLoS One Abbreviated Journal PLoS One
Volume 11 Issue 4 Pages e0151782
Keywords systems simulation; nitrogen dynamics; winter-wheat; crop models; data resolution; scale; water; variability; calibration; weather
Abstract (up) We show the error in water-limited yields simulated by crop models which is associated with spatially aggregated soil and climate input data. Crop simulations at large scales (regional, national, continental) frequently use input data of low resolution. Therefore, climate and soil data are often generated via averaging and sampling by area majority. This may bias simulated yields at large scales, varying largely across models. Thus, we evaluated the error associated with spatially aggregated soil and climate data for 14 crop models. Yields of winter wheat and silage maize were simulated under water-limited production conditions. We calculated this error from crop yields simulated at spatial resolutions from 1 to 100 km for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Most models showed yields biased by <15% when aggregating only soil data. The relative mean absolute error (rMAE) of most models using aggregated soil data was in the range or larger than the inter-annual or inter-model variability in yields. This error increased further when both climate and soil data were aggregated. Distinct error patterns indicate that the rMAE may be estimated from few soil variables. Illustrating the range of these aggregation effects across models, this study is a first step towards an ex-ante assessment of aggregation errors in large-scale simulations.
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 1932-6203 ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4725
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Webber, H.; Gaiser, T.; Oomen, R.; Teixeira, E.; Zhao, G.; Wallach, D.; Zimmermann, A.; Ewert, F.
Title Uncertainty in future irrigation water demand and risk of crop failure for maize in Europe Type Journal Article
Year 2016 Publication Environmental Research Letters Abbreviated Journal Environ. Res. Lett.
Volume Issue Pages
Keywords crop model; impact assessment; crop water use; evapotranspiration; irrigation; drought; uncertainty
Abstract (up) While crop models are widely used to assess the change in crop productivity with climate change, their skill in assessing irrigation water demand or the risk of crop failure in large area impact assessments is relatively unknown. The objective of this study is to investigate which aspects of modeling crop water use (reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0), soil water extraction, soil evaporation, soil water balance and root growth) contributes most to the variability in estimates of maize crop water use and the risk of crop failure, and demonstrate the resulting uncertainty in a climate change impact study for Europe. The SIMPLACE crop modeling framework was used to couple the LINTUL5 crop model in factorial combinations of 2-3 different approaches for simulating the 5 aspects of crop water use, resulting in 51 modeling approaches. Using experiments in France and New Zeland, analysis of total sensitivity revealed that ET0 explained the most variability in both irrigated maize water use and rainfed grain yield levels, with soil evaporation also imporatant in the French experiment. In the European impact study, net irrigation requirement differed by 36% between the Penman and Hargreaves ET0 methods in the baseline period. Average EU grain yields were similar between models, but differences approached 1-2 tonnes in parts of France and Southern Europe. EU wide esimates of crop failure in the historical period ranged between 5.4 years for Priestley-Taylor to every 7.9 years for the Penman ET0 methods. While the uncertainty in absolute values between models was significant, estimates of relative changes were similar between models, confirming the utility of crop models in assessing climate change impacts. If ET0 estimates in crop models can be improved, through the use of appropriate methods, uncertainty in irrigation water demand as well as in yield estimates under drought can be reduced.
Address 2016-09-13
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language Language Summary Language Newsletter July Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN ISBN Medium Article
Area CropM Expedition Conference
Notes CropM; wos; ft=macsur; Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4778
Permanent link to this record