|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Mearns, L. O., Ruane, A. C., Rötter, R. P., & Asseng, S. (2016). Lessons from climate modeling on the design and use of ensembles for crop modeling. Clim. Change, .
Abstract: Working with ensembles of crop models is a recent but important development in crop modeling which promises to lead to better uncertainty estimates for model projections and predictions, better predictions using the ensemble mean or median, and closer collaboration within the modeling community. There are numerous open questions about the best way to create and analyze such ensembles. Much can be learned from the field of climate modeling, given its much longer experience with ensembles. We draw on that experience to identify questions and make propositions that should help make ensemble modeling with crop models more rigorous and informative. The propositions include defining criteria for acceptance of models in a crop MME, exploring criteria for evaluating the degree of relatedness of models in a MME, studying the effect of number of models in the ensemble, development of a statistical model of model sampling, creation of a repository for MME results, studies of possible differential weighting of models in an ensemble, creation of single model ensembles based on sampling from the uncertainty distribution of parameter values or inputs specifically oriented toward uncertainty estimation, the creation of super ensembles that sample more than one source of uncertainty, the analysis of super ensemble results to obtain information on total uncertainty and the separate contributions of different sources of uncertainty and finally further investigation of the use of the multi-model mean or median as a predictor.
|
|
|
|
Webber, H., Gaiser, T., Oomen, R., Teixeira, E., Zhao, G., Wallach, D., et al. (2016). Uncertainty in future irrigation water demand and risk of crop failure for maize in Europe. Environ. Res. Lett., .
Abstract: While crop models are widely used to assess the change in crop productivity with climate change, their skill in assessing irrigation water demand or the risk of crop failure in large area impact assessments is relatively unknown. The objective of this study is to investigate which aspects of modeling crop water use (reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0), soil water extraction, soil evaporation, soil water balance and root growth) contributes most to the variability in estimates of maize crop water use and the risk of crop failure, and demonstrate the resulting uncertainty in a climate change impact study for Europe. The SIMPLACE crop modeling framework was used to couple the LINTUL5 crop model in factorial combinations of 2-3 different approaches for simulating the 5 aspects of crop water use, resulting in 51 modeling approaches. Using experiments in France and New Zeland, analysis of total sensitivity revealed that ET0 explained the most variability in both irrigated maize water use and rainfed grain yield levels, with soil evaporation also imporatant in the French experiment. In the European impact study, net irrigation requirement differed by 36% between the Penman and Hargreaves ET0 methods in the baseline period. Average EU grain yields were similar between models, but differences approached 1-2 tonnes in parts of France and Southern Europe. EU wide esimates of crop failure in the historical period ranged between 5.4 years for Priestley-Taylor to every 7.9 years for the Penman ET0 methods. While the uncertainty in absolute values between models was significant, estimates of relative changes were similar between models, confirming the utility of crop models in assessing climate change impacts. If ET0 estimates in crop models can be improved, through the use of appropriate methods, uncertainty in irrigation water demand as well as in yield estimates under drought can be reduced.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Nissanka, S. P., Karunaratne, A. S., Weerakoon, W. M. W., Thorburn, P. J., Boote, K. J., et al. (2016). Accounting for both parameter and model structure uncertainty in crop model predictions of phenology: A case study on rice. European Journal of Agronomy, .
Abstract: We consider predictions of the impact of climate warming on rice development times in Sri Lanka. The major emphasis is on the uncertainty of the predictions, and in particular on the estimation of mean squared error of prediction. Three contributions to mean squared error are considered. The first is parameter uncertainty that results from model calibration. To take proper account of the complex data structure, generalized least squares is used to estimate the parameters and the variance-covariance matrix of the parameter estimators. The second contribution is model structure uncertainty, which we estimate using two different models. An ANOVA analysis is used to separate the contributions of parameter and model uncertainty to mean squared error. The third contribution is model error, which is estimated using hindcasts. Mean squared error of prediction of time from emergence to maturity, for baseline +2 °C, is estimated as 108 days2, with model error contributing 86 days2, followed by model structure uncertainty which contributes 15 days2 and parameter uncertainty which contributes 7 days2. We also show how prediction uncertainty is reduced if prediction concerns development time averaged over years, or the difference in development time between baseline and warmer temperatures.
|
|
