|   | 
Details
   web
Records
Author Kipling, R.P.; Topp, C.F.E.; Bannink, A.; Bartley, D.J.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; Cortignani, R.; del Prado, A.; Dono, G.; Faverdin, P.; Graux, A.-I.; Hutchings, N.J.; Lauwers, L.; Gulzari, S.O.; Reidsma, P.; Rolinski, S.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Sandars, D.L.; Sandor, R.; Schoenhart, M.; Seddaiu, G.; van Middelkoop, J.; Shrestha, S.; Weindl, I.; Eory, V.
Title To what extent is climate change adaptation a novel challenge for agricultural modellers Type Journal Article
Year 2019 Publication Environmental Modelling & Software Abbreviated Journal Env. Model. Softw.
Volume 120 Issue Pages Unsp 104492
Keywords Adaptation; Agricultural modelling; Climate change; Research challenges; greenhouse-gas emissions; farm-level adaptation; land-use; food; security; adapting agriculture; livestock production; decision-making; change impacts; dairy farms; crop
Abstract Modelling is key to adapting agriculture to climate change (CC), facilitating evaluation of the impacts and efficacy of adaptation measures, and the design of optimal strategies. Although there are many challenges to modelling agricultural CC adaptation, it is unclear whether these are novel or, whether adaptation merely adds new motivations to old challenges. Here, qualitative analysis of modellers’ views revealed three categories of challenge: Content, Use, and Capacity. Triangulation of findings with reviews of agricultural modelling and Climate Change Risk Assessment was then used to highlight challenges specific to modelling adaptation. These were refined through literature review, focussing attention on how the progressive nature of CC affects the role and impact of modelling. Specific challenges identified were: Scope of adaptations modelled, Information on future adaptation, Collaboration to tackle novel challenges, Optimisation under progressive change with thresholds, and Responsibility given the sensitivity of future outcomes to initial choices under progressive change.
Address 2020-02-14
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor (up)
Language English Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 1364-8152 ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes LiveM, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 5223
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Van Oijen, M.; Cameron, D.; Levy, P.E.; Preston, R.
Title Correcting errors from spatial upscaling of nonlinear greenhouse gas flux models Type Journal Article
Year 2017 Publication Environmental Modelling & Software Abbreviated Journal Environmental Modelling & Software
Volume 94 Issue Pages 157-165
Keywords
Abstract
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor (up)
Language Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 1364-8152 ISBN Medium article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4945
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Houska, T.; Kraft, P.; Liebermann, R.; Klatt, S.; Kraus, D.; Haas, E.; Santabarbara, I.; Kiese, R.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Müller, C.; Breuer, L.
Title Rejecting hydro-biogeochemical model structures by multi-criteria evaluation Type Journal Article
Year 2017 Publication Environmental Modelling & Software Abbreviated Journal Env. Model. Softw.
Volume 93 Issue Pages 1-12
Keywords
Abstract Highlights • New method to investigate biogeochemical model structure performance. • Process based hydrological modelling can improve biogeochemical model predictions. • Modelling efficiency dramatically drops with multiple objectives. Abstract This work presents a novel way for assessing and comparing different hydro-biogeochemical model structures and their performances. We used the LandscapeDNDC modelling framework to set up four models of different complexity, considering two soil-biogeochemical and two hydrological modules. The performance of each model combination was assessed using long-term (8 years) data and applying different thresholds, considering multiple criteria and objective functions. Our results show that each model combination had its strength for particular criteria. However, only 0.01% of all model runs passed the complete rejectionist framework. In contrast, our comparatively applied assessments of single thresholds, as frequently used in other studies, lead to a much higher acceptance rate of 40–70%. Therefore, our study indicates that models can be right for the wrong reasons, i.e., matching GHG emissions while at the same time failing to simulate other criteria such as soil moisture or plant biomass dynamics.
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor (up)
Language Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 1364-8152 ISBN Medium
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4983
Permanent link to this record