|
|
Sándor, R., Barcza, Z., Acutis, M., Doro, L., Hidy, D., Köchy, M., et al. (2016). Multi-model simulation of soil temperature, soil water content and biomass in Euro-Mediterranean grasslands: Uncertainties and ensemble performance. European Journal of Agronomy, .
Abstract: • We simulate biomass, soil water content (SWC) and temperature (ST) in grasslands. • We compare nine models to the multi-model median (MMM) at nine sites. • With model calibration, we obtain satisfactory estimates of ST, less of SWC and biomass. • We observe discrepancies across models in the simulation of grassland processes. • We improve performance with multi-model approach. This study presents results from a major grassland model intercomparison exercise, and highlights the main challenges faced in the implementation of a multi-model ensemble prediction system in grasslands. Nine, independently developed simulation models linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to grassland biogeochemical cycles and production were compared in a simulation of soil water content (SWC) and soil temperature (ST) in the topsoil, and of biomass production. The results were assessed against SWC and ST data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions – Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland – and against yield measurements from the same sites and other experimental grassland sites in Europe and Israel. We present a comparison of model estimates from individual models to the multi-model ensemble (represented by multi-model median: MMM). With calibration (seven out of nine models), the performances were acceptable for weekly-aggregated ST (R² > 0.7 with individual models and >0.8–0.9 with MMM), but less satisfactory with SWC (R² < 0.6 with individual models and < ∼ 0.5 with MMM) and biomass (R² < ∼0.3 with both individual models and MMM). With individual models, maximum biases of about −5 °C for ST, −0.3 m3 m−3 for SWC and 360 g DM m−2 for yield, as well as negative modelling efficiencies and some high relative root mean square errors indicate low model performance, especially for biomass. We also found substantial discrepancies across different models, indicating considerable uncertainties regarding the simulation of grassland processes. The multi-model approach allowed for improved performance, but further progress is strongly needed in the way models represent processes in managed grassland systems.
|
|
|
|
Bellocchi, G., Rivington, M., Matthews, K., & Acutis, M. (2015). Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review. Agron. Sust. Developm., 35(2), 589–605.
Abstract: The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.
|
|
|
|
Perego, A., Sanna, M., Giussani, A., Chiodini, M. E., Fumagalli, M., Pilu, S. R., et al. (2014). Designing a high-yielding maize ideotype for a changing climate in Lombardy plain (northern Italy). Science of The Total Environment, 499, 497–509.
Abstract: The expected climate change will affect the maize yields in view of air temperature increase and scarce water availability. The application of biophysical models offers the chance to design a drought-resistant ideotype and to assist plant breeders and agronomists in the assessment of its suitability in future scenarios. The aim of the present work was to perform a model-based estimation of the yields of two hybrids, current vs ideotype, under future climate scenarios (2030-2060 and 2070-2100) in Lombardy (northern Italy), testing two options of irrigation (small amount at fixed dates vs optimal water supply), nitrogen (N) fertilization (300 vs 400 kg N ha(-1)), and crop cycle durations (current vs extended). For the designing of the ideotype we set several parameters of the ARMOSA process-based crop model: the root elongation rate and maximum depth, stomatal resistance, four stage-specific crop coefficients for the actual transpiration estimation, and drought tolerance factor. The work findings indicated that the current hybrid ensures good production only with high irrigation amount (245-565 mm y(-1)). With respect to the current hybrid, the ideotype will require less irrigation water (-13%, p<0.01) and it resulted in significantly higher yield under water stress condition (+15%, p<0.01) and optimal water supply (+2%, p<0.05). The elongated cycle has a positive effect on yield under any combination of options. Moreover, higher yields projected for the ideotype implicate more crop residues to be incorporated into the soil, which are positively correlated with the SOC sequestration and negatively with N leaching. The crop N uptake is expected to be adequate in view of higher rate of soil mineralization; the N fertilization rate of 400 kg N ha(-1) will involve significant increasing of grain yield, and it is expected to involve a higher rate of SOC sequestration.
|
|
|
|
Ferrise, R., Bindi, M., Acutis, M., & Bellocchi, G. (2016). Fuzzy-logic based multi-site crop model evaluation in Europe.. Berlin (Germany).
|
|
|
|
Fronzek, S., Pirttioja, N., Carter, T. R., Bindi, M., Hoffmann, H., Palosuo, T., et al. (2016). Classifying simulated wheat yield responses to changes in temperature and precipitation across a European transect.. Berlin (Germany).
|
|
