|
|
Liu, B., Asseng, S., Müller, C., Ewert, F., Elliott, J., Lobell, D. B., et al. (2016). Similar estimates of temperature impacts on global wheat yield by three independent methods. Nat. Clim. Change, 6(12), 1130–1136.
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann, H., Zhao, G., Asseng, S., Bindi, M., Biernath, C., Constantin, J., et al. (2016). Impact of spatial soil and climate input data aggregation on regional yield simulations. PLoS One, 11(4), e0151782.
Abstract: We show the error in water-limited yields simulated by crop models which is associated with spatially aggregated soil and climate input data. Crop simulations at large scales (regional, national, continental) frequently use input data of low resolution. Therefore, climate and soil data are often generated via averaging and sampling by area majority. This may bias simulated yields at large scales, varying largely across models. Thus, we evaluated the error associated with spatially aggregated soil and climate data for 14 crop models. Yields of winter wheat and silage maize were simulated under water-limited production conditions. We calculated this error from crop yields simulated at spatial resolutions from 1 to 100 km for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Most models showed yields biased by <15% when aggregating only soil data. The relative mean absolute error (rMAE) of most models using aggregated soil data was in the range or larger than the inter-annual or inter-model variability in yields. This error increased further when both climate and soil data were aggregated. Distinct error patterns indicate that the rMAE may be estimated from few soil variables. Illustrating the range of these aggregation effects across models, this study is a first step towards an ex-ante assessment of aggregation errors in large-scale simulations.
|
|
|
|
Ewert, F., van Bussel, L. G. J., Zhao, G., Hoffmann, H., Gaiser, T., Specka, X., et al. (2015). Uncertainties in Scaling up Crop Models for Large Area Climate-change Impact Assessments. In C. Rosenzweig, & D. Hillel (Eds.), (pp. 261–277). Handbook of Climate Change and Agroecosystems: The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Integrated Crop and Economic Assessments — Joint Publication with American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America (In 2 Parts), ICP Series on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, . London: Imperial College Press.
|
|
|
|
Cammarano, D., Rötter, R. P., Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Wallach, D., Martre, P., et al. (2016). Uncertainty of wheat water use: Simulated patterns and sensitivity to temperature and CO2. Field Crops Research, 198, 80–92.
Abstract: Projected global warming and population growth will reduce future water availability for agriculture. Thus, it is essential to increase the efficiency in using water to ensure crop productivity. Quantifying crop water use (WU; i.e. actual evapotranspiration) is a critical step towards this goal. Here, sixteen wheat simulation models were used to quantify sources of model uncertainty and to estimate the relative changes and variability between models for simulated WU, water use efficiency (WUE, WU per unit of grain dry mass produced), transpiration efficiency (Teff, transpiration per kg of unit of grain yield dry mass produced), grain yield, crop transpiration and soil evaporation at increased temperatures and elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations ([CO2]). The greatest uncertainty in simulating water use, potential evapotranspiration, crop transpiration and soil evaporation was due to differences in how crop transpiration was modelled and accounted for 50% of the total variability among models. The simulation results for the sensitivity to temperature indicated that crop WU will decline with increasing temperature due to reduced growing seasons. The uncertainties in simulated crop WU, and in particularly due to uncertainties in simulating crop transpiration, were greater under conditions of increased temperatures and with high temperatures in combination with elevated atmospheric [CO2] concentrations. Hence the simulation of crop WU, and in particularly crop transpiration under higher temperature, needs to be improved and evaluated with field measurements before models can be used to simulate climate change impacts on future crop water demand.
|
|
|
|
Bassu, S., Brisson, N., Durand, J. - L., Boote, K., Lizaso, J., Jones, J. W., et al. (2014). How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20(7), 2301–2320.
Abstract: Potential consequences of climate change on crop production can be studied using mechanistic crop simulation models. While a broad variety of maize simulation models exist, it is not known whether different models diverge on grain yield responses to changes in climatic factors, or whether they agree in their general trends related to phenology, growth, and yield. With the goal of analyzing the sensitivity of simulated yields to changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO2 ], we present the largest maize crop model intercomparison to date, including 23 different models. These models were evaluated for four locations representing a wide range of maize production conditions in the world: Lusignan (France), Ames (USA), Rio Verde (Brazil) and Morogoro (Tanzania). While individual models differed considerably in absolute yield simulation at the four sites, an ensemble of a minimum number of models was able to simulate absolute yields accurately at the four sites even with low data for calibration, thus suggesting that using an ensemble of models has merit. Temperature increase had strong negative influence on modeled yield response of roughly -0.5 Mg ha(-1) per °C. Doubling [CO2 ] from 360 to 720 μmol mol(-1) increased grain yield by 7.5% on average across models and the sites. That would therefore make temperature the main factor altering maize yields at the end of this century. Furthermore, there was a large uncertainty in the yield response to [CO2 ] among models. Model responses to temperature and [CO2 ] did not differ whether models were simulated with low calibration information or, simulated with high level of calibration information.
|
|
