| |
Records |
Links  |
|
Author |
Minet, J.; Laloy, E.; Tychon, B.; François, L. |
|
| |
Title |
Bayesian inversions of a dynamic vegetation model at four European grassland sites |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Biogeosciences |
Abbreviated Journal |
Biogeosciences |
|
| |
Volume |
12 |
Issue |
9 |
Pages |
2809-2829 |
|
| |
Keywords |
eddy-covariance data; terrestrial ecosystem model; bioclimatic affinity; groups; monte-carlo-simulation; dry-matter content; leaf-area; climate-change; stomatal conductance; parameter-estimation; plant |
|
| |
Abstract |
Eddy covariance data from four European grassland sites are used to probabilistically invert the CARAIB (CARbon Assimilation In the Biosphere) dynamic vegetation model (DVM) with 10 unknown parameters, using the DREAM((ZS)) (DiffeRential Evolution Adaptive Metropolis) Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampler. We focus on comparing model inversions, considering both homoscedastic and heteroscedastic eddy covariance residual errors, with variances either fixed a priori or jointly inferred together with the model parameters. Agreements between measured and simulated data during calibration are comparable with previous studies, with root mean square errors (RMSEs) of simulated daily gross primary productivity (GPP), ecosystem respiration (RECO) and evapotranspiration (ET) ranging from 1.73 to 2.19, 1.04 to 1.56 g C m(-2) day(-1) and 0.50 to 1.28 mm day(-1), respectively. For the calibration period, using a homoscedastic eddy covariance residual error model resulted in a better agreement between measured and modelled data than using a heteroscedastic residual error model. However, a model validation experiment showed that CARAIB models calibrated considering heteroscedastic residual errors perform better. Posterior parameter distributions derived from using a heteroscedastic model of the residuals thus appear to be more robust. This is the case even though the classical linear heteroscedastic error model assumed herein did not fully remove heteroscedasticity of the GPP residuals. Despite the fact that the calibrated model is generally capable of fitting the data within measurement errors, systematic bias in the model simulations are observed. These are likely due to model inadequacies such as shortcomings in the photosynthesis modelling. Besides the residual error treatment, differences between model parameter posterior distributions among the four grassland sites are also investigated. It is shown that the marginal distributions of the specific leaf area and characteristic mortality time parameters can be explained by site-specific ecophysiological characteristics. |
|
| |
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 |
1726-4189 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM LiveM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4571 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Angulo, C.; Rötter, R.; Trnka, M.; Pirttioja, N.; Gaiser, T.; Hlavinka, P.; Ewert, F. |
|
| |
Title |
Characteristic ‘fingerprints’ of crop model responses to weather input data at different spatial resolutions |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2013 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
European Journal of Agronomy |
|
| |
Volume |
49 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
104-114 |
|
| |
Keywords |
crop model; weather data resolution; aggregation; yield distribution; climate-change scenarios; areal unit problem; simulation-model; winter-wheat; system model; impacts; europe; yield; productivity; precipitation |
|
| |
Abstract |
Crop growth simulation models are increasingly used for regionally assessing the effects of climate change and variability on crop yields. These models require spatially and temporally detailed, location-specific, environmental (weather and soil) and management data as inputs, which are often difficult to obtain consistently for larger regions. Aggregating the resolution of input data for crop model applications may increase the uncertainty of simulations to an extent that is not well understood. The present study aims to systematically analyse the effect of changes in the spatial resolution of weather input data on yields simulated by four crop models (LINTUL-SLIM, DSSAT-CSM, EPIC and WOFOST) which were utilized to test possible interactions between weather input data resolution and specific modelling approaches representing different degrees of complexity. The models were applied to simulate grain yield of spring barley in Finland for 12 years between 1994 and 2005 considering five spatial resolutions of daily weather data: weather station (point) and grid-based interpolated data at resolutions of 10 km x 10 km; 20 km x 20 km; 50 km x 50 km and 100 km x 100 km. Our results show that the differences between models were larger than the effect of the chosen spatial resolution of weather data for the considered years and region. When displaying model results graphically, each model exhibits a characteristic ‘fingerprint’ of simulated yield frequency distributions. These characteristic distributions in response to the inter-annual weather variability were independent of the spatial resolution of weather input data. Using one model (LINTUL-SLIM), we analysed how the aggregation strategy, i.e. aggregating model input versus model output data, influences the simulated yield frequency distribution. Results show that aggregating weather data has a smaller effect on the yield distribution than aggregating simulated yields which causes a deformation of the model fingerprint. We conclude that changes in the spatial resolution of weather input data introduce less uncertainty to the simulations than the use of different crop models but that more evaluation is required for other regions with a higher spatial heterogeneity in weather conditions, and for other input data related to soil and crop management to substantiate our findings. Our results provide further evidence to support other studies stressing the importance of using not just one, but different crop models in climate assessment studies. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. |
|
| |
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 |
1161-0301 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4598 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Nendel, C.; Wieland, R.; Mirschel, W.; Specka, X.; Guddat, C.; Kersebaum, K.C. |
|
| |
Title |
Simulating regional winter wheat yields using input data of different spatial resolution |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2013 |
Publication |
Field Crops Research |
Abbreviated Journal |
Field Crops Research |
|
| |
Volume |
145 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
67-77 |
|
| |
Keywords |
monica; agro-ecosystem model; dynamic modelling; scaling; input data; climate-change; crop yield; nitrogen dynamics; food security; mineral nitrogen; soil-moisture; scaling-up; model; maize; water |
|
| |
Abstract |
The success of using agro-ecosystem models for the high-resolution simulation of agricultural yields for larger areas is often hampered by a lack of input data. We investigated the effect of different spatially resolved soil and weather data used as input for the MONICA model on its ability to reproduce winter wheat yields in the Federal State of Thuringia, Germany (16,172 km(2)). The combination of one representative soil and one weather station was insufficient to reproduce the observed mean yield of 6.66 +/- 0.87 t ha(-1) for the federal state. Use of a 100 m x 100 m grid of soil and relief information combined with just one representative weather station yielded a good estimator (7.01 +/- 1.47 t ha(-1)). The soil and relief data grid used in combination with weather information from 14 weather stations in a nearest neighbour approach produced even better results (6.60 +/- 1.37 t ha(-1)); the same grid used with 39 additional rain gauges and an interpolation algorithm that included an altitude correction of temperature data slightly overpredicted the observed mean (7.36 +/- 1.17 t ha(-1)). It was concluded that the apparent success of the first two high-resolution approaches over the latter was based on two effects that cancelled each other out: the calibration of MONICA to match high-yield experimental data and the growth-defining and -limiting effect of weather data that is not representative for large parts of the region. At the county and farm level the MONICA model failed to reproduce the 1992-2010 time series of yields, which is partly explained by the fact that many growth-reducing factors were not considered in the model. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. |
|
| |
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 |
0378-4290 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4498 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Nelson, G.C.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Calvin, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; van Meijl, H.; Müller, C.; Reilly, J.; Robertson, R.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Takahashi, K.; Valin, H.; Willenbockel, D. |
|
| |
Title |
Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Agricultural Economics |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Econ. |
|
| |
Volume |
45 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
85-101 |
|
| |
Keywords |
climate change impacts; economic models of agriculture; scenarios; system model; demand; CMIP5 |
|
| |
Abstract |
Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty. |
|
| |
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 |
0169-5150 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4536 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Nelson, G.C.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Calvin, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; van Meijl, H.; Müller, C.; Reilly, J.; Robertson, R.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Takahashi, K.; Valin, H.; Willenbockel, D. |
|
| |
Title |
Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Agricultural Economics |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Econ. |
|
| |
Volume |
45 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
85-85 |
|
| |
Keywords |
climate change impacts; economic models of agriculture; scenarios; system model; demand; cmip5 |
|
| |
Abstract |
Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty. |
|
| |
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 |
0169-5150 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4796 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
