| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> |
|
| Records | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Ferrise, R.; Rodriguez, A.; Lorite, I.J.; Bindi, M.; Carter, T.R.; Fronzek, S.; Palosuo, T.; Pirttioja, N.; Baranowski, P.; Buis, S.; Cammarano, D.; Chen, Y.; Dumont, B.; Ewert, F.; Gaiser, T.; Hlavinka, P.; Hoffmann, H.; Hoehn, J.G.; Jurecka, F.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Krzyszczak, J.; Lana, M.; Mechiche-Alami, A.; Minet, J.; Montesino, M.; Nendel, C.; Porter, J.R.; Ruget, F.; Semenov, M.A.; Steinmetz, Z.; Stratonovitch, P.; Supit, I.; Tao, F.; Trnka, M.; de Wit, A.; Roetter, R.P. | ||||
| Title | Adaptation response surfaces for managing wheat under perturbed climate and CO2 in a Mediterranean environment | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2018 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Syst. |
| Volume | 159 | Issue | Pages | 260-274 | |
| Keywords | Wheat adaptation; Sensitivity analysis; Crop model ensemble; Rainfed, Mediterranean cropping system; AOCK concept; Iberian Peninsula; Simulation-Model; Change Impacts; Crop; Uncertainty; Ensemble; Europe; Yield; Productivity; Irrigation | ||||
| Abstract | Adaptation of crops to climate change has to be addressed locally due to the variability of soil, climate and the specific socio-economic settings influencing farm management decisions. Adaptation of rainfed cropping systems in the Mediterranean is especially challenging due to the projected decline in precipitation in the coming decades, which will increase the risk of droughts. Methods that can help explore uncertainties in climate projections and crop modelling, such as impact response surfaces (IRSs) and ensemble modelling, can then be valuable for identifying effective adaptations. Here, an ensemble of 17 crop models was used to simulate a total of 54 adaptation options for rainfed winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) at Lleida (NE Spain). To support the ensemble building, an ex post quality check of model simulations based on several criteria was performed. Those criteria were based on the “According to Our Current Knowledge” (AOCK) concept, which has been formalized here. Adaptations were based on changes in cultivars and management regarding phenology, vernalization, sowing date and irrigation. The effects of adaptation options under changed precipitation (P), temperature (T.),[CO2] and soil type were analysed by constructing response surfaces, which we termed, in accordance with their specific purpose, adaptation response surfaces (ARSs). These were created to assess the effect of adaptations through a range of plausible P, T and [CO2] perturbations. The results indicated that impacts of altered climate were predominantly negative. No single adaptation was capable of overcoming the detrimental effect of the complex interactions imposed by the P, T and [CO2] perturbations except for supplementary irrigation (sI), which reduced the potential impacts under most of the perturbations. Yet, a combination of adaptations for dealing with climate change demonstrated that effective adaptation is possible at Lleida. Combinations based on a cultivar without vernalization requirements showed good and wide adaptation potential. Few combined adaptation options performed well under rainfed conditions. However, a single sI was sufficient to develop a high adaptation potential, including options mainly based on spring wheat, current cycle duration and early sowing date. Depending on local environment (e.g. soil type), many of these adaptations can maintain current yield levels under moderate changes in T and P, and some also under strong changes. We conclude that ARSs can offer a useful tool for supporting planning of field level adaptation under conditions of high uncertainty. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. | ||||
| Address | 2018-01-25 | ||||
| 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 | ||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5184 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Fronzek, S.; Pirttioja, N.; Carter, T.R.; Bindi, M.; Hoffmann, H.; Palosuo, T.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Tao, F.; Trnka, M.; Acutis, M.; Asseng, S.; Baranowski, P.; Basso, B.; Bodin, P.; Buis, S.; Cammarano, D.; Deligios, P.; Destain, M.-F.; Dumont, B.; Ewert, F.; Ferrise, R.; Francois, L.; Gaiser, T.; Hlavinka, P.; Jacquemin, I.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Kollas, C.; Krzyszczaki, J.; Lorite, I.J.; Minet, J.; Ines Minguez, M.; Montesino, M.; Moriondo, M.; Mueller, C.; Nendel, C.; Ozturk, I.; Perego, A.; Rodriguez, A.; Ruane, A.C.; Ruget, F.; Sanna, M.; Semenov, M.A.; Slawinski, C.; Stratonovitch, P.; Supit, I.; Waha, K.; Wang, E.; Wu, L.; Zhao, Z.; Rotter, R.P. | ||||
| Title | Classifying multi-model wheat yield impact response surfaces showing sensitivity to temperature and precipitation change | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2018 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Syst. |
| Volume | 159 | Issue | Pages | 209-224 | |
| Keywords | Classification; Climate change; Crop model; Ensemble; Sensitivity analysis; Wheat; Climate-Change; Crop Models; Probabilistic Assessment; Simulating; Impacts; British Catchments; Uncertainty; Europe; Productivity; Calibration; Adaptation | ||||
| Abstract | Crop growth simulation models can differ greatly in their treatment of key processes and hence in their response to environmental conditions. Here, we used an ensemble of 26 process-based wheat models applied at sites across a European transect to compare their sensitivity to changes in temperature (-2 to +9 degrees C) and precipitation (-50 to +50%). Model results were analysed by plotting them as impact response surfaces (IRSs), classifying the IRS patterns of individual model simulations, describing these classes and analysing factors that may explain the major differences in model responses. The model ensemble was used to simulate yields of winter and spring wheat at four sites in Finland, Germany and Spain. Results were plotted as IRSs that show changes in yields relative to the baseline with respect to temperature and precipitation. IRSs of 30-year means and selected extreme years were classified using two approaches describing their pattern. The expert diagnostic approach (EDA) combines two aspects of IRS patterns: location of the maximum yield (nine classes) and strength of the yield response with respect to climate (four classes), resulting in a total of 36 combined classes defined using criteria pre-specified by experts. The statistical diagnostic approach (SDA) groups IRSs by comparing their pattern and magnitude, without attempting to interpret these features. It applies a hierarchical clustering method, grouping response patterns using a distance metric that combines the spatial correlation and Euclidian distance between IRS pairs. The two approaches were used to investigate whether different patterns of yield response could be related to different properties of the crop models, specifically their genealogy, calibration and process description. Although no single model property across a large model ensemble was found to explain the integrated yield response to temperature and precipitation perturbations, the application of the EDA and SDA approaches revealed their capability to distinguish: (i) stronger yield responses to precipitation for winter wheat than spring wheat; (ii) differing strengths of response to climate changes for years with anomalous weather conditions compared to period-average conditions; (iii) the influence of site conditions on yield patterns; (iv) similarities in IRS patterns among models with related genealogy; (v) similarities in IRS patterns for models with simpler process descriptions of root growth and water uptake compared to those with more complex descriptions; and (vi) a closer correspondence of IRS patterns in models using partitioning schemes to represent yield formation than in those using a harvest index. Such results can inform future crop modelling studies that seek to exploit the diversity of multi-model ensembles, by distinguishing ensemble members that span a wide range of responses as well as those that display implausible behaviour or strong mutual similarities. | ||||
| Address | 2018-01-25 | ||||
| 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 | ||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5186 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Makowski, D.; Asseng, S.; Ewert, F.; Bassu, S.; Durand, J.L.; Li, T.; Martre, P.; Adam, M.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Angulo, C.; Baron, C.; Basso, B.; Bertuzzi, P.; Biernath, C.; Boogaard, H.; Boote, K.J.; Bouman, B.; Bregaglio, S.; Brisson, N.; Buis, S.; Cammarano, D.; Challinor, A.J.; Confalonieri, R.; Conijn, J.G.; Corbeels, M.; Deryng, D.; De Sanctis, G.; Doltra, J.; Fumoto, T.; Gaydon, D.; Gayler, S.; Goldberg, R.; Grant, R.F.; Grassini, P.; Hatfield, J.L.; Hasegawa, T.; Heng, L.; Hoek, S.; Hooker, J.; Hunt, L.A.; Ingwersen, J.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Jongschaap, R.E.E.; Jones, J.W.; Kemanian, R.A.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Kim, S.-H.; Lizaso, J.; Marcaida, M.; Müller, C.; Nakagawa, H.; Naresh Kumar, S.; Nendel, C.; O’Leary, G.J.; Olesen, J.E.; Oriol, P.; Osborne, T.M.; Palosuo, T.; Pravia, M.V.; Priesack, E.; Ripoche, D.; Rosenzweig, C.; Ruane, A.C.; Ruget, F.; Sau, F.; Semenov, M.A.; Shcherbak, I.; Singh, B.; Singh, U.; Soo, H.K.; Steduto, P.; Stöckle, C.; Stratonovitch, P.; Streck, T.; Supit, I.; Tang, L.; Tao, F.; Teixeira, E.I.; Thorburn, P.; Timlin, D.; Travasso, M.; Rötter, R.P.; Waha, K.; Wallach, D.; White, J.W.; Wilkens, P.; Williams, J.R.; Wolf, J.; Yin, X.; Yoshida, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, Y. | ||||
| Title | A statistical analysis of three ensembles of crop model responses to temperature and CO2 concentration | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2015 | Publication | Agricultural and Forest Meteorology | Abbreviated Journal |
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology |
| Volume | 214-215 | Issue | Pages | 483-493 | |
| Keywords | climate change; crop model; emulator; meta-model; statistical model; yield; climate-change; wheat yields; metaanalysis; uncertainty; simulation; impacts | ||||
| Abstract | Ensembles of process-based crop models are increasingly used to simulate crop growth for scenarios of temperature and/or precipitation changes corresponding to different projections of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This approach generates large datasets with thousands of simulated crop yield data. Such datasets potentially provide new information but it is difficult to summarize them in a useful way due to their structural complexities. An associated issue is that it is not straightforward to compare crops and to interpolate the results to alternative climate scenarios not initially included in the simulation protocols. Here we demonstrate that statistical models based on random-coefficient regressions are able to emulate ensembles of process-based crop models. An important advantage of the proposed statistical models is that they can interpolate between temperature levels and between CO2 concentration levels, and can thus be used to calculate temperature and [CO2] thresholds leading to yield loss or yield gain, without rerunning the original complex crop models. Our approach is illustrated with three yield datasets simulated by 19 maize models, 26 wheat models, and 13 rice models. Several statistical models are fitted to these datasets, and are then used to analyze the variability of the yield response to [CO2] and temperature. Based on our results, we show that, for wheat, a [CO2] increase is likely to outweigh the negative effect of a temperature increase of +2 degrees C in the considered sites. Compared to wheat, required levels of [CO2] increase are much higher for maize, and intermediate for rice. For all crops, uncertainties in simulating climate change impacts increase more with temperature than with elevated [CO2]. | ||||
| 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, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4714 | ||
| 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 | |||||