| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Rodriguez, A.; Dosio, A.; Goodess, C.M.; Harpham, C.; Minguez, M.I.; Sanchez, E. |
|
| |
Title |
Comparing correction methods of RCM outputs for improving crop impact projections in the Iberian Peninsula for 21st century |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Climatic Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Clim. Change |
|
| |
Volume |
134 |
Issue |
1-2 |
Pages |
283-297 |
|
| |
Keywords  |
regional climate model; bias correction; weather generator; circulation model; simulations; temperature; precipitation; ensemble; uncertainty; extremes |
|
| |
Abstract |
Assessment of climate change impacts on crops in regions of complex orography such as the Iberian Peninsula (IP) requires climate model output which is able to describe accurately the observed climate. The high resolution of output provided by Regional Climate Models (RCMs) is expected to be a suitable tool to describe regional and local climatic features, although their simulation results may still present biases. For these reasons, we compared several post-processing methods to correct or reduce the biases of RCM simulations from the ENSEMBLES project for the IP. The bias-corrected datasets were also evaluated in terms of their applicability and consequences in improving the results of a crop model to simulate maize growth and development at two IP locations, using this crop as a reference for summer cropping systems in the region. The use of bias-corrected climate runs improved crop phenology and yield simulation overall and reduced the inter-model variability and thus the uncertainty. The number of observational stations underlying each reference observational dataset used to correct the bias affected the correction performance. Although no single technique showed to be the best one, some methods proved to be more adequate for small initial biases, while others were useful when initial biases were so large as to prevent data application for impact studies. An initial evaluation of the climate data, the bias correction/reduction method and the consequences for impact assessment would be needed to design the most robust, reduced uncertainty ensemble for a specific combination of location, crop, and crop management. |
|
| |
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 |
0165-0009 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4805 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Refsgaard, J.C.; Madsen, H.; Andréassian, V.; Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K.; Davidson, T.A.; Drews, M.; Hamilton, D.P.; Jeppesen, E.; Kjellström, E.; Olesen, J.E.; Sonnenborg, T.O.; Trolle, D.; Willems, P.; Christensen, J.H. |
|
| |
Title |
A framework for testing the ability of models to project climate change and its impacts |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Climatic Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Clim. Change |
|
| |
Volume |
122 |
Issue |
1-2 |
Pages |
271-282 |
|
| |
Keywords |
simulation-models; shallow lakes; predictions; calibration; ensembles; terminology; uncertainty; temperature; adaptation; validation |
|
| |
Abstract |
Models used for climate change impact projections are typically not tested for simulation beyond current climate conditions. Since we have no data truly reflecting future conditions, a key challenge in this respect is to rigorously test models using proxies of future conditions. This paper presents a validation framework and guiding principles applicable across earth science disciplines for testing the capability of models to project future climate change and its impacts. Model test schemes comprising split-sample tests, differential split-sample tests and proxy site tests are discussed in relation to their application for projections by use of single models, ensemble modelling and space-time-substitution and in relation to use of different data from historical time series, paleo data and controlled experiments. We recommend that differential-split sample tests should be performed with best available proxy data in order to build further confidence in model projections. |
|
| |
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 |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4688 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Montesino-San Martín, M.; Olesen, J.E.; Porter, J.R. |
|
| |
Title |
Can crop-climate models be accurate and precise? A case study for wheat production in Denmark |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology |
|
| |
Volume |
202 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
51-60 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Uncertainty; Model intercomparison; Bayesian approach; Climate change; Wheat; Denmark; uncertainty analysis; simulation-models; bayesian-approach; change; impact; yields; variability; projections; scale; calibration; framework |
|
| |
Abstract |
Crop models, used to make projections of climate change impacts, differ greatly in structural detail. Complexity of model structure has generic effects on uncertainty and error propagation in climate change impact assessments. We applied Bayesian calibration to three distinctly different empirical and mechanistic wheat models to assess how differences in the extent of process understanding in models affects uncertainties in projected impact. Predictive power of the models was tested via both accuracy (bias) and precision (or tightness of grouping) of yield projections for extrapolated weather conditions. Yields predicted by the mechanistic model were generally more accurate than the empirical models for extrapolated conditions. This trend does not hold for all extrapolations; mechanistic and empirical models responded differently due to their sensitivities to distinct weather features. However, higher accuracy comes at the cost of precision of the mechanistic model to embrace all observations within given boundaries. The approaches showed complementarity in sensitivity to weather variables and in accuracy for different extrapolation domains. Their differences in model precision and accuracy make them suitable for generic model ensembles for near-term agricultural impact assessments of climate change. |
|
| |
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 |
0168-1923 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4572 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Challinor, A.; Martre, P.; Asseng, S.; Thornton, P.; Ewert, F. |
|
| |
Title |
Making the most of climate impacts ensembles |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Nature Climate Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Nat. Clim. Change |
|
| |
Volume |
4 |
Issue |
2 |
Pages |
77-80 |
|
| |
Keywords |
uncertainty; model; adaptation |
|
| |
Abstract |
Increasing use of regionally and globally oriented impacts studies, coordinated across international modelling groups, promises to bring about a new era in climate impacts research. Coordinated cycles of model improvement and projection are needed to make the most of this potential. |
|
| |
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 |
1758-678x 1758-6798 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Commentary |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4516 |
|
| 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 |
