| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Wallach, D.; Mearns, L.O.; Ruane, A.C.; Rötter, R.P.; Asseng, S. |
|
| |
Title |
Lessons from climate modeling on the design and use of ensembles for crop modeling |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Climatic Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Clim. Change |
|
| |
Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages  |
|
|
| |
Keywords |
Model ensembles; Crop models; Climate models; Model weighting; Super ensembles |
|
| |
Abstract |
Working with ensembles of crop models is a recent but important development in crop modeling which promises to lead to better uncertainty estimates for model projections and predictions, better predictions using the ensemble mean or median, and closer collaboration within the modeling community. There are numerous open questions about the best way to create and analyze such ensembles. Much can be learned from the field of climate modeling, given its much longer experience with ensembles. We draw on that experience to identify questions and make propositions that should help make ensemble modeling with crop models more rigorous and informative. The propositions include defining criteria for acceptance of models in a crop MME, exploring criteria for evaluating the degree of relatedness of models in a MME, studying the effect of number of models in the ensemble, development of a statistical model of model sampling, creation of a repository for MME results, studies of possible differential weighting of models in an ensemble, creation of single model ensembles based on sampling from the uncertainty distribution of parameter values or inputs specifically oriented toward uncertainty estimation, the creation of super ensembles that sample more than one source of uncertainty, the analysis of super ensemble results to obtain information on total uncertainty and the separate contributions of different sources of uncertainty and finally further investigation of the use of the multi-model mean or median as a predictor. |
|
| |
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 |
0165-0009 1573-1480 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Review |
|
| |
Area |
CropM |
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM; wos; ft=macsur; wsnotyet; |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4781 |
|
| 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 |
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 |
Sándor, R.; Barcza, Z.; Acutis, M.; Doro, L.; Hidy, D.; Köchy, M.; Minet, J.; Lellei-Kovács, E.; Ma, S.; Perego, A.; Rolinski, S.; Ruget, F.; Sanna, M.; Seddaiu, G.; Wu, L.; Bellocchi, G. |
|
| |
Title |
Multi-model simulation of soil temperature, soil water content and biomass in Euro-Mediterranean grasslands: Uncertainties and ensemble performance |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
European Journal of Agronomy |
|
| |
Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
|
| |
Keywords |
Biomass; Grasslands; Modelling; Multi-model ensemble; Soil processes |
|
| |
Abstract |
• We simulate biomass, soil water content (SWC) and temperature (ST) in grasslands. • We compare nine models to the multi-model median (MMM) at nine sites. • With model calibration, we obtain satisfactory estimates of ST, less of SWC and biomass. • We observe discrepancies across models in the simulation of grassland processes. • We improve performance with multi-model approach. This study presents results from a major grassland model intercomparison exercise, and highlights the main challenges faced in the implementation of a multi-model ensemble prediction system in grasslands. Nine, independently developed simulation models linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to grassland biogeochemical cycles and production were compared in a simulation of soil water content (SWC) and soil temperature (ST) in the topsoil, and of biomass production. The results were assessed against SWC and ST data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions – Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland – and against yield measurements from the same sites and other experimental grassland sites in Europe and Israel. We present a comparison of model estimates from individual models to the multi-model ensemble (represented by multi-model median: MMM). With calibration (seven out of nine models), the performances were acceptable for weekly-aggregated ST (R² > 0.7 with individual models and >0.8–0.9 with MMM), but less satisfactory with SWC (R² < 0.6 with individual models and < ∼ 0.5 with MMM) and biomass (R² < ∼0.3 with both individual models and MMM). With individual models, maximum biases of about −5 °C for ST, −0.3 m3 m−3 for SWC and 360 g DM m−2 for yield, as well as negative modelling efficiencies and some high relative root mean square errors indicate low model performance, especially for biomass. We also found substantial discrepancies across different models, indicating considerable uncertainties regarding the simulation of grassland processes. The multi-model approach allowed for improved performance, but further progress is strongly needed in the way models represent processes in managed grassland systems. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
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 |
|
|
| |
Area |
LiveM |
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4768 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Zhang, W.; Liu, C.; Zheng, X.; Zhou, Z.; Cui, F.; Zhu, B.; Haas, E.; Klatt, S.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Kiese, R. |
|
| |
Title |
Comparison of the DNDC, LandscapeDNDC and IAP-N-GAS models for simulating nitrous oxide and nitric oxide emissions from the winter wheat–summer maize rotation system |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agricultural Systems |
|
| |
Volume |
140 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
1-10 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Model ensemble; Straw incorporation; Irrigation; Fertilization; Calcareous soil; North China Plain; process-oriented model; soil organic-matter; biogeochemical model; cropping system; N2O emissions; forest soils; microbial-growth; rainfall events; calcareous soil |
|
| |
Abstract |
The DNDC, LandscapeDNDC and IAP-N-GAS models have been designed to simulate the carbon and nitrogen processes of terrestrial ecosystems. Until now, a comparison of these models using simultaneous observations has not been reported, although such a comparison is essential for further model development and application. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the models, delineate the strengths and limitations of each model for simulating soil nitrous oxide (N2O) and nitric oxide (NO) emissions, and explore short-comings of these models that may require reconsideration. We conducted comparisons among the models using simultaneous observations of both gases and relevant variables from the winter wheat-summer maize rotation system at three field sites with calcareous soils. Simulations of N2O and NO emissions by the three models agreed well with annual observations, but not with daily observations. All models failed to correctly simulate soil moisture, which could explain some of the incorrect daily fluxes of N2O and NO, especially for intensive fluxes during the growing season. Multi-model ensembles are promising approaches to better simulate daily gas emissions. IAP-N-GAS underestimated the priming effect of straw incorporation on N2O and NO emissions, but better results were obtained with DNDC95 and LandscapeDNDC. LandscapeDNDC and IAP-N-GAS need to improve the simulation of irrigation water allocation and residue decomposition processes, respectively, and together to distinguish different irrigation methods as DNDC95 does. All three models overestimated the emissions of the nitrogenous gases for high nitrogen fertilizer (>430 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1)) addition treatments, and therefore, future research should focus more on the simulation of the limitation of soil dissolvable organic carbon on denitrification in calcareous soils. |
|
| |
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 |
0308-521x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4685 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Challinor, A.J.; Smith, M.S.; Thornton, P. |
|
| |
Title |
Use of agro-climate ensembles for quantifying uncertainty and informing adaptation |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2013 |
Publication |
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology |
|
| |
Volume |
170 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
2-7 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Climate models; Crop models; Ensembles; Climate change; Adaptation; Food security; Climate variability; Uncertainty; Crop yield |
|
| |
Abstract |
► Introduces the special issue on Agricultural prediction using climate model ensembles. ► Discuss remaining scientific challenges. ► Develops distinction between projection- and utility-based ensemble modelling. ► Recommendations made RE modelling and the analysis and reporting of uncertainty. Significant progress has been made in the use of ensemble agricultural and climate modelling, and observed data, to project future productivity and to develop adaptation options. An increasing number of agricultural models are designed specifically for use with climate ensembles, and improved methods to quantify uncertainty in both climate and agriculture have been developed. Whilst crop–climate relationships are still the most common agricultural study of this sort, on-farm management, hydrology, pests, diseases and livestock are now also examined. This paper introduces all of these areas of progress, with more detail being found in the subsequent papers in the special issue. Remaining scientific challenges are discussed, and a distinction is developed between projection- and utility-based approaches to agro-climate ensemble modelling. Recommendations are made regarding the manner in which uncertainty is analysed and reported, and the way in which models and data are used to make inferences regarding the future. A key underlying principle is the use of models as tools from which information is extracted, rather than as competing attempts to represent reality. |
|
| |
Address |
2015-09-23 |
|
| |
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 |
0168-1923 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4690 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
