|
|
Savary, S., Jouanin, C., Félix, I., Gourdain, E., Piraux, F., Brun, F., et al. (2016). Assessing plant health in a network of experiments on hardy winter wheat varieties in France: patterns of disease-climate associations. Eur. J. Plant Pathol., 146, 741–755.
Abstract: A data set generated by a multi-year (2003–2010) and multi-site network of experiments on winter wheat varieties grown at different levels of crop management is analysed in order to assess the importance of climate on the variability of wheat health. Wheat health is represented by the multiple pathosystem involving five components: leaf rust, yellow rust, fusarium head blight, powdery mildew, and septoria tritici blotch. An overall framework of associations between multiple diseases and climate variables is developed. This framework involves disease levels in a binary form (i.e. epidemic vs. non-epidemic) and synthesis variables accounting for climate over spring and early summer. The multiple disease-climate pattern of associations of this framework conforms to disease-specific knowledge of climate effects on the components of the pathosystem. It also concurs with a (climate-based) risk factor approach to wheat diseases. This report emphasizes the value of large scale data in crop health assessment and the usefulness of a risk factor approach for both tactical and strategic decisions for crop health management.
|
|
|
|
Maiorano, A., Martre, P., Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Müller, C., Rötter, R. P., et al. (2016). Crop model improvement reduces the uncertainty of the response to temperature of multi-model ensembles. Field Crops Research, 202, 5–20.
Abstract: To improve climate change impact estimates and to quantify their uncertainty, multi-model ensembles (MMEs) have been suggested. Model improvements can improve the accuracy of simulations and reduce the uncertainty of climate change impact assessments. Furthermore, they can reduce the number of models needed in a MME. Herein, 15 wheat growth models of a larger MME were improved through re-parameterization and/or incorporating or modifying heat stress effects on phenology, leaf growth and senescence, biomass growth, and grain number and size using detailed field experimental data from the USDA Hot Serial Cereal experiment (calibration data set). Simulation results from before and after model improvement were then evaluated with independent field experiments from a CIMMYT world-wide field trial network (evaluation data set). Model improvements decreased the variation (10th to 90th model ensemble percentile range) of grain yields simulated by the MME on average by 39% in the calibration data set and by 26% in the independent evaluation data set for crops grown in mean seasonal temperatures >24 °C. MME mean squared error in simulating grain yield decreased by 37%. A reduction in MME uncertainty range by 27% increased MME prediction skills by 47%. Results suggest that the mean level of variation observed in field experiments and used as a benchmark can be reached with half the number of models in the MME. Improving crop models is therefore important to increase the certainty of model-based impact assessments and allow more practical, i.e. smaller MMEs to be used effectively.
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann, M. P., Haakana, M., Asseng, S., Höhn, J. G., Palosuo, T., Ruiz-Ramos, M., et al. (2017). How does inter-annual variability of attainable yield affect the magnitude of yield gaps for wheat and maize? An analysis at ten sites. Agric. Syst., , in press.
Abstract: Highlights • The larger simulated attainable yield for a specific crop season, the larger the yield gap. • Average size of the yield gap is not affected by the inter-annual variability of attainable yield. • Technology levels (resource input and accessibility) determine average yield gap. • To reduce yield gaps in rainfed environments, farmers need to improve season-specific crop management. Abstract Provision of food security in the face of increasing global food demand requires narrowing of the gap between actual farmer’s yield and maximum attainable yield. So far, assessments of yield gaps have focused on average yield over 5–10 years, but yield gaps can vary substantially between crop seasons. In this study we hypothesized that climate-induced inter-annual yield variability and associated risk is a major barrier for farmers to invest, i.e. increase inputs to narrow the yield gap. We evaluated the importance of inter-annual attainable yield variability for the magnitude of the yield gap by utilizing data for wheat and maize at ten sites representing some major food production systems and a large range of climate and soil conditions across the world. Yield gaps were derived from the difference of simulated attainable yields and regional recorded farmer yields for 1981 to 2010. The size of the yield gap did not correlate with the amplitude of attainable yield variability at a site, but was rather associated with the level of available resources such as labor, fertilizer and plant protection inputs. For the sites in Africa, recorded yield reached only 20% of the attainable yield, while for European, Asian and North American sites it was 56–84%. Most sites showed that the higher the attainable yield of a specific season the larger was the yield gap. This significant relationship indicated that farmers were not able to take advantage of favorable seasonal weather conditions. To reduce yield gaps in the different environments, reliable seasonal weather forecasts would be required to allow farmers to manage each seasonal potential, i.e. overcoming season-specific yield limitations.
|
|
|
|
Challinor, A. J., Müller, C., Asseng, S., Deva, C., Nicklin, K. J., Wallach, D., et al. (2017). Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation. Agric. Syst., 159, 296–306.
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.
|
|
