|
|
Yin, X., Kersebaum, K. - C., Beaudoin, N., Constantin, J., Chen, F., Louarn, G., et al. (2020). Uncertainties in simulating N uptake, net N mineralization, soil mineral N and N leaching in European crop rotations using process-based models. Field Crops Research, , 107863.
Abstract: Modelling N transformations within cropping systems is crucial for N management optimization in order to increase N use efficiency and reduce N losses. Such modelling remains challenging because of the complexity of N cycling in soil–plant systems. In the current study, the uncertainties of six widely used process-based models (PBMs), including APSIM, CROPSYST, DAISY, FASSET, HERMES and STICS, were tested in simulating different N managements (catch crops (CC) and different N fertilizer rates) in 12-year rotations in Western Europe. Winter wheat, sugar beet and pea were the main crops, and radish was the main CC in the tested systems. Our results showed that PBMs simulated yield, aboveground biomass, N export and N uptake well with low RMSE values, except for sugar beet, which was generally less well parameterized. Moreover, PBMs provided more accurate crop simulations (i.e. N export and N uptake) compared to simulations of soil (N mineralization and soil mineral N (SMN)) and environmental variables (N leaching). The use of multi-model ensemble mean or median of four PBMs significantly reduced the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) between simulations and observations to less than 15% for yield, aboveground biomass, N export and N uptake. Multi-model ensemble also significantly reduced the MAPE for net N mineralization and annual N leaching to around 15%, while it was larger than 20% for SMN. Generally, PBMs well simulated the CC effects on N fluxes, i.e. increasing N mineralization and reducing N leaching in both short-term and long-term, and all PBMs correctly predicted the effects of the reduced N rate on all measured variables in the study. The uncertainties of multi-model ensemble for N mineralization, SMN and N leaching were larger, mainly because these variables are influenced by plant-soil interactions and subject to cumulative long-term effects in crop rotations, which makes them more difficult to simulate. Large differences existed between individual PBMs due to the differences in formalisms for describing N processes in soil–plant systems, the skills of modelers and the model calibration level. In addition, the model performance also depended on the simulated variables, for instance, HERMES and FASSET performed better for yield and crop biomass, APSIM, DAISY and STICS performed better for N export and N uptake, STICS provided best simulation for SMN and N leaching among the six individual PBMs in the study, but all PBMs met difficulties to well predict either average or variance of soil N mineralization. Our results showed that better calibration for soil N variables is needed to improve model predictions of N cycling in order to optimize N management in crop rotations.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
