| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–11] |
|
Bellocchi, G., & Ma, S. (2014). Results of uncalibrated grassland model runs (Vol. 3).
Abstract: This deliverable focuses on the some illustrative results obtained with the grassland models selected (D-L2.1.1) to simulate biomass and flux data from grassland sites in Europe and peri-Mediterranean regions (D-L2.1.1 and D-L2.1.2). This is a blind exercise, carried out without model calibration. The complete set of results will include simulations from calibrated models. The results shown are illustrative of the methodology adopted for grassland model intercomparison in MACSUR. The insights gained from this ongoing study are relevant for some crop and vegetation models, which in some cases proved comparable to grassland-specific models to simulate biomass data from managed grasslands. The results reported here cannot be considered conclusive. Additional results will be published as they become available together with calibration results, as well as the comprehensive evaluation of models with fuzzy logic-based indicators. No Label
|
|
Bellocchi, G., Rivington, M., & Acutis, M. (2014). Protocol for model evaluation (Vol. 3).
Abstract: This deliverable focuses on the development of methods for model evaluation in order to have unambiguous indications derived from the use of several evaluation metrics. The information about model quality is aggregated into a single indicator using a fuzzy expert system that can be applied to a wide range of model estimates where suitable test data are available. This is a cross-cutting activity between CropM (C1.4) and LiveM (L2.2). No Label
|
|
Bellocchi, G., & Sándor, R. (2015). Model intercomparison (Vol. 6).
Abstract: This deliverable focuses on some illustrative results obtained with different grassland- specific, grassland adapted crop and dynamic vegetation models selected out of the first list of models compiled in D-L2.1.1 to simulate biomass and flux data from grassland sites in Europe and peri-Mediterranean regions (D-L2.1.1 and D-L2.1.2). Results from uncalibrated simulations were documented in the D-L2.3 report as a blind exercise. Some model improvements are emphasized in this report due to the higher information level of the model calibrations. The complete set of results will include simulations from uncalibrated and calibrated models. No Label
|
|
Sándor, R., Barcza, Z., Hidy, D., Lellei-Kovács, E., Ma, S., & Bellocchi, G. (2016). Modelling of grassland fluxes in Europe: evaluation of two biogeochemical models. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 215, 1–19.
Abstract: Two independently developed simulation models – the grassland-specific PaSim and the biome-generic Biome-BGC MuSo (BBGC MuSo) – linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to ecosystem biogeochemical cycles were compared in a simulation of carbon (C) and water fluxes. The results were assessed against eddy-covariance flux data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions in Europe: Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland. Model comparison (after calibration) gave substantial agreement, the performances being marginal to acceptable for weekly-aggregated gross primary production and ecosystem respiration (R-2 similar to 0.66 – 0.91), weekly evapotranspiration (R-2 similar to 0.78 – 0.94), soil water content in the topsoil (R-2 similar to 0.1 -0.7) and soil temperature (R-2 similar to 0.88 – 0.96). The bias was limited to the range -13 to 9 g C m(-2) week(-1) for C fluxes (-11 to 8 g C m(-2) week(-1) in case of BBGC MuSo, and -13 to 9 g C m(-2) week(-1) in case of PaSim) and -4 to 6 mm week for water fluxes (with BBGC MuSo providing somewhat higher estimates than PaSim), but some higher relative root mean square errors indicate low accuracy for prediction, especially for net ecosystem exchange The sensitivity of simulated outputs to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]), temperature and precipitation indicate, with certain agreement between the two models, that C outcomes are dominated by [CO2] and temperature gradients, and are less due to precipitation. ET rates decrease with increasing [CO2] in PaSim (consistent with experimental knowledge), while lack of appropriate stomatal response could be a limit in BBGC MuSo responsiveness. Results of the study indicate that some of the errors might be related to the improper representation of soil water content and soil temperature. Improvement is needed in the model representations of soil processes (especially soil water balance) that strongly influence the biogeochemical cycles of managed and unmanaged grasslands. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
Brilli, L., Ferrise, R., Dibari, C., Bindi, M., & Bellocchi, G. (2017). Needs on model improvement (Vol. 10).
Abstract: The need to answer new scientific questions can be satisfied by an increased knowledge of physiological mechanisms which, in turn, can be used for improving the accuracy of simulations of process-based models. In this context, this report highlights areas that need to be further improved to facilitate the operational use of simulation models. It describes missing approaches within simulation models which, if implemented, would likely improve the representation of the dynamics of processes underlying different compartments of crop and grassland systems (e.g. plant growth and development, yield production, GHG emissions), as well as of the livestock production systems. The following rationale has been used in the organization of this report. We first briefly introduced the need to improve the reliability of existing models. Then, we indicated climate change and its influence on the global carbon balance as the main issue to be addressed by existing crop and grassland (section 2), and livestock (section 3) models. In section 2, among the major aspects that if implemented may reduce the uncertainty inherent to model outputs, we suggested: i) quantifying the effects of climate extremes on biological systems; ii) modelling of multi-species sward; iii) coupling of pest and disease sub-models; iv) improvement of the carry-over effect. In section 3, as the most important aspects to consider in livestock models we indicated: i) impacts and dynamics of pathogens and disease; ii) heat stress effects on livestock; iii) effects on grassland productivity and nutritional values; iv) improvement of GHG emissions dynamics. In Section 4, remarks are made concerning the need to implement the suggested aspects into the existing models.
|