toggle visibility Search & Display Options

Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print
  Records Links
Author Pirttioja, N.; Fronzek, S.; Rötter, R.P.; Carter, T.R. url  openurl
  Title (up) Simulating Adaptive Management Using Impact Models in a Risk Framework Type Conference Article
  Year 2012 Publication Abbreviated Journal  
  Volume Issue Pages  
  Keywords CropM  
  Abstract  
  Address  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN ISBN Medium  
  Area Expedition Conference Adaptation Futures. Tucson, AZ, USA, 2012-05-29 to 2012-05-31  
  Notes Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 2725  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Dumont, B.; Vancutsem, F.; Seutin, B.; Bodson, B.; Destain, J.-P.; Destain, M.-F. url  openurl
  Title (up) Simulation de la croissance du blé à l’aide de modèles écophysiologiques: Synthèse bibliographique des méthodes, potentialités et limitations Type Journal Article
  Year 2012 Publication Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement Abbreviated Journal Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement  
  Volume 163 Issue Pages 376-386  
  Keywords crops; growth; soil; Triticum; wheats; calibration; optimization methods  
  Abstract Crop models describe the growth and development of a crop interacting with its surrounding agro-environmental conditions (soil, climate and the close conditions of the plant). However, the implementation of such models remains difficult because of the high number of explanatory variables and parameters. It often happens that important discrepancies appear between measured and simulated values. This article aims to highlight the different sources of uncertainty related to the use of crop models, as well as the actual methods that allow a compensation for or, at least, a consideration of these sources of error during analysis of the model results. This article presents a literature review, which firstly synthesises the general mathematical structure of crop models. The main criteria for evaluating crop models are then described. Finally, several methods used for improving models are given. Parameter estimation methods, including frequentist and Bayesian approaches, are presented and data assimilation methods are reviewed.  
  Address  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language French Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM, ftnotmacsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4584  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Rötter, R.P.; Palosuo, T.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Angulo, C.; Bindi, M.; Ewert, F.; Ferrise, R.; Hlavinka, P.; Moriondo, M.; Nendel, C.; Olesen, J.E.; Patil, R.H.; Ruget, F.; Takác, J.; Trnka, M. url  doi
openurl 
  Title (up) Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models Type Journal Article
  Year 2012 Publication Field Crops Research Abbreviated Journal Field Crops Research  
  Volume 133 Issue Pages 23-36  
  Keywords climate; crop growth simulation; model comparison; spring barley; yield variability; uncertainty; change impacts; nitrogen dynamics; high-temperature; soil-moisture; elevated co2; ceres-wheat; data set; growth; drought; sensitivity  
  Abstract In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.  
  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 0378-4290 ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM, ftnotmacsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4803  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Rötter, R.P.; Palosuo, T.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Angulo, C.; Bindi, M.; Ewert, F.; Ferrise, R.; Hlavinka, P.; Moriondo, M.; Olesen, J.E.; Takáč, J.; Trnka, M. doi  openurl
  Title (up) Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models Type Journal Article
  Year 2012 Publication Field Crops Research Abbreviated Journal Field Crops Research  
  Volume 133 Issue Pages 23-36  
  Keywords Climate; Crop growth simulation; Model comparison; Spring barley; Yield variability; Uncertainty; change impacts; nitrogen dynamics; high-temperature; soil-moisture; elevated co2; ceres-wheat; data set; growth; drought; sensitivity  
  Abstract ► We compared nine crop simulation models for spring barley at seven sites in Europe. ► Applying crop models with restricted calibration leads to high uncertainties. ► Multi-crop model mean yield estimates were in good agreement with observations. ► The degree of uncertainty for simulated grain yield of barley was similar to winter wheat. ► We need more suitable data enabling us to verify different processes in the models. In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction.  
  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 ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM, ftnotmacsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4592  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Sollitto, D.; De Benedetto, D.; Castrignanò, A.; Crescimanno, G.; Provenzano, G.; Ventrella, D. url  doi
openurl 
  Title (up) Spatial data fusion and analysis for soil characterization: a case study in a coastal basin of south-western Sicily (southern Italy) Type Journal Article
  Year 2012 Publication Italian Journal of Agronomy Abbreviated Journal Ital. J. Agron.  
  Volume 7 Issue 1 Pages 4  
  Keywords salinization risk; soil retention curve; geostatistics; factor Kriging; intrinsic random funciton  
  Abstract Salinization is one of the most serious problems confronting sustainable agriculture in semi-arid and arid regions. Accurate mapping of soil salinization and the associated risk represent a fundamental step in planning agricultural and remediation activities. Geostatistical analysis is very useful for soil quality assessment because it makes it possible to determine the spatial relationships between selected variables and to produce synthetic maps of spatial variation. The main objective of this paper was to map the soil salinization risk in the Delia-Nivolelli alluvial basin (south-western Sicily, southern Italy), using multivariate geostatistical techniques and a set of topographical, physical and soil hydraulic properties. Elevation data were collected from existing topographic maps and analysed preliminarily to improve the estimate precision of sparsely sampled primary variables. For interpolation multi-collocated cokriging was applied to the dataset, including textural and hydraulic properties and electrical conductivity measurements carried out on 128 collected soil samples, using elevation data as auxiliary variable. Spatial dependence among elevation and physical soil properties was explored with factorial kriging analysis (FKA) that could isolate and display the sources of variation acting at different spatial scales. FKA isolated significant regionalised factors which give a concise description of the complex soil physical variability at the different selected spatial scales. These factors mapped, allowed the delineation of zones at different salinisation risk to be managed separately to control and prevent salinization risk. The proposed methodology could be a valid support for land use and soil remediation planning at regional scale.  
  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 2039-6805 1125-4718 ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM, ftnotmacsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4595  
Permanent link to this record
Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print

Save Citations:
Export Records: