| Home | << 1 2 >> |
|
| Records | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Fleisher, D.H.; Condori, B.; Quiroz, R.; Alva, A.; Asseng, S.; Barreda, C.; Bindi, M.; Boote, K.J.; Ferrise, R.; Franke, A.C.; Govindakrishnan, P.M.; Harahagazwe, D.; Hoogenboom, G.; Naresh Kumar, S.; Merante, P.; Nendel, C.; Olesen, J.E.; Parker, P.S.; Raes, D.; Raymundo, R.; Ruane, A.C.; Stockle, C.; Supit, I.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Wolf, J.; Woli, P. | ||||
| Title | A potato model intercomparison across varying climates and productivity levels | Type | Journal Article | ||
Year  |
2017 | Publication | Global Change Biology | Abbreviated Journal | Glob. Chang. Biol. |
| Volume | 23 | Issue | 3 | Pages | 1258-1281 |
| Keywords | |||||
| Abstract | A potato crop multimodel assessment was conducted to quantify variation among models and evaluate responses to climate change. Nine modeling groups simulated agronomic and climatic responses at low-input (Chinoli, Bolivia and Gisozi, Burundi)- and high-input (Jyndevad, Denmark and Washington, United States) management sites. Two calibration stages were explored, partial (P1), where experimental dry matter data were not provided, and full (P2). The median model ensemble response outperformed any single model in terms of replicating observed yield across all locations. Uncertainty in simulated yield decreased from 38% to 20% between P1 and P2. Model uncertainty increased with interannual variability, and predictions for all agronomic variables were significantly different from one model to another (P < 0.001). Uncertainty averaged 15% higher for low- vs. high-input sites, with larger differences observed for evapotranspiration (ET), nitrogen uptake, and water use efficiency as compared to dry matter. A minimum of five partial, or three full, calibrated models was required for an ensemble approach to keep variability below that of common field variation. Model variation was not influenced by change in carbon dioxide (C), but increased as much as 41% and 23% for yield and ET, respectively, as temperature (T) or rainfall (W) moved away from historical levels. Increases in T accounted for the highest amount of uncertainty, suggesting that methods and parameters for T sensitivity represent a considerable unknown among models. Using median model ensemble values, yield increased on average 6% per 100-ppm C, declined 4.6% per °C, and declined 2% for every 10% decrease in rainfall (for nonirrigated sites). Differences in predictions due to model representation of light utilization were significant (P < 0.01). These are the first reported results quantifying uncertainty for tuber/root crops and suggest modeling assessments of climate change impact on potato may be improved using an ensemble approach. | ||||
| 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 | 1354-1013 | ISBN | Medium | article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, ftnotmacsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4968 | ||
| 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 | Hoffmann, H.; Zhao, G.; Asseng, S.A.U.-,; Bindi, M.; Cammarano, D.; Constantin, J.; Coucheney, E.; Dechow, R.; Doro, L.; Eckersten, H.; Gaiser, T.; Grosz, B.; Haas, E.; Kassie, B.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Kiese, R.; Klatt, S.; Kuhnert, M.; Lewan, E.; Moriondo, M.; Nendel, C.; Raynal, H.; Roggero, P.P.; Rötter, R.; Siebert, S.; Sosa, C.; Specka, X.; Tao, F.; Teixeira, E.; Trombi, G.; Yeluripati, J.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Wallach, D.; Wang, E.; Weihermüller, L.; Zhao, Z.; Ewert, F. | ||||
| Title | Analysing data aggregation effects on large-scale yield simulations | Type | Conference Article | ||
| Year |
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 | 4923 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Zhao, G.; Hoffmann, H.; van Bussel, L.G.J.; Enders, A.; Specka, X.; Sosa, C.; Yeluripati, J.; Tao, F.L.; Constantin, J.; Raynal, H.; Teixeira, E.; Grosz, B.; Doro, L.; Zhao, Z.G.; Nendel, C.; Kiese, R.; Eckersten, H.; Haas, E.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Wang, E.; Kuhnert, M.; Trombi, G.; Moriondo, M.; Bindi, M.; Lewan, E.; Bach, M.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Rotter, R.; Roggero, P.P.; Wallach, D.; Cammarano, D.; Asseng, S.; Krauss, G.; Siebert, S.; Gaiser, T.; Ewert, F. | ||||
| Title | Effect of weather data aggregation on regional crop simulation for different crops, production conditions, and response variables | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year |
2015 | Publication | Climate Research | Abbreviated Journal | Clim. Res. |
| Volume | 65 | Issue | Pages | 141-157 | |
| Keywords | crop model; model comparison; spatial resolution; data aggregation; spatial heterogeneity; scaling; climate-change scenarios; sub-saharan africa; winter-wheat; spatial-resolution; yield response; input data; systems simulation; large-scale; soil data; part i | ||||
| Abstract | We assessed the weather data aggregation effect (DAE) on the simulation of cropping systems for different crops, response variables, and production conditions. Using 13 process-based crop models and the ensemble mean, we simulated 30 yr continuous cropping systems for 2 crops (winter wheat and silage maize) under 3 production conditions for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. The DAE was evaluated for 5 weather data resolutions (i.e. 1, 10, 25, 50, and 100 km) for 3 response variables including yield, growing season evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency. Five metrics, viz. the spatial bias (Delta), average absolute deviation (AAD), relative AAD, root mean squared error (RMSE), and relative RMSE, were used to evaluate the DAE on both the input weather data and simulated results. For weather data, we found that data aggregation narrowed the spatial variability but widened the., especially across mountainous areas. The DAE on loss of spatial heterogeneity and hotspots was stronger than on the average changes over the region. The DAE increased when coarsening the spatial resolution of the input weather data. The DAE varied considerably across different models, but changed only slightly for different production conditions and crops. We conclude that if spatially detailed information is essential for local management decision, higher resolution is desirable to adequately capture the spatial variability for heterogeneous regions. The required resolution depends on the choice of the model as well as the environmental condition of the study area. | ||||
| 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 | 0936-577x | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4754 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Hoffmann, H.; Zhao, G.; van Bussel, L.G.J.; Enders, A.; Specka, X.; Sosa, C.; Yeluripati, J.; Tao, F.; Constantin, J.; Raynal, H.; Teixeira, E.; Grosz, B.; Doro, L.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, E.; Nendel, C.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Haas, E.; Kiese, R.; Klatt, S.; Eckersten, H.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Kuhnert, M.; Lewan, E.; Rötter, R.; Roggero, P.P.; Wallach, D.; Cammarano, D.; Asseng, S.; Krauss, G.; Siebert, S.; Gaiser, T.; Ewert, F. | ||||
| Title | Variability of effects of spatial climate data aggregation on regional yield simulation by crop models | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year |
2015 | Publication | Climate Research | Abbreviated Journal | Clim. Res. |
| Volume | 65 | Issue | Pages | 53-69 | |
| Keywords | spatial aggregation effects; crop simulation model; input data; scaling; variability; yield simulation; model comparison; input data aggregation; systems simulation; nitrogen dynamics; data resolution; n2o emissions; winter-wheat; scale; water; impact; apsim | ||||
| Abstract | Field-scale crop models are often applied at spatial resolutions coarser than that of the arable field. However, little is known about the response of the models to spatially aggregated climate input data and why these responses can differ across models. Depending on the model, regional yield estimates from large-scale simulations may be biased, compared to simulations with high-resolution input data. We evaluated this so-called aggregation effect for 13 crop models for the region of North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany. The models were supplied with climate data of 1 km resolution and spatial aggregates of up to 100 km resolution raster. The models were used with 2 crops (winter wheat and silage maize) and 3 production situations (potential, water-limited and nitrogen-water-limited growth) to improve the understanding of errors in model simulations related to data aggregation and possible interactions with the model structure. The most important climate variables identified in determining the model-specific input data aggregation on simulated yields were mainly related to changes in radiation (wheat) and temperature (maize). Additionally, aggregation effects were systematic, regardless of the extent of the effect. Climate input data aggregation changed the mean simulated regional yield by up to 0.2 t ha(-1), whereas simulated yields from single years and models differed considerably, depending on the data aggregation. This implies that large-scale crop yield simulations are robust against climate data aggregation. However, large-scale simulations can be systematically biased when being evaluated at higher temporal or spatial resolution depending on the model and its parameterization. | ||||
| 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 | 0936-577x 1616-1572 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4694 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||