Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., et al. (2012). Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models. Field Crops Research, 133, 23–36.
Abstract: In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. - C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., et al. (2012). Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models. Field Crops Research, 133, 23–36.
Abstract: ► We compared nine crop simulation models for spring barley at seven sites in Europe. ► Applying crop models with restricted calibration leads to high uncertainties. ► Multi-crop model mean yield estimates were in good agreement with observations. ► The degree of uncertainty for simulated grain yield of barley was similar to winter wheat. ► We need more suitable data enabling us to verify different processes in the models. In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction.
|
Ventrella, D., Charfeddine, M., Moriondo, M., Rinaldi, M., & Bindi, M. (2012). Agronomic adaptation strategies under climate change for winter durum wheat and tomato in southern Italy: irrigation and nitrogen fertilization. Reg Environ Change, 12(3), 407–419.
Abstract: Agricultural crops are affected by climate change due to the relationship between crop development, growth, yield, CO2 atmospheric concentration and climate conditions. In particular, the further reduction in existing limited water resources combined with an increase in temperature may result in higher impacts on agricultural crops in the Mediterranean area than in other regions. In this study, the cropping system models CERES-Wheat and CROPGRO-Tomato of the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) were used to analyse the response of winter durum wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) crops to climate change, irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer managements in one of most productive areas of Italy (i.e. Capitanata, Puglia). For this analysis, three climatic datasets were used: (1) a single dataset (50 km x 50 km) provided by the JRC European centre for the period 1975-2005; two datasets from HadCM3 for the IPCC A2 GHG scenario for time slices with +2A degrees C (centred over 2030-2060) and +5A degrees C (centred over 2070-2099), respectively. All three datasets were used to generate synthetic climate series using a weather simulator (model LARS-WG). Adaptation strategies, such as irrigation and N fertilizer managements, have been investigated to either avoid or at least reduce the negative impacts induced by climate change impacts for both crops. Warmer temperatures were primarily shown to accelerate wheat and tomato phenology, thereby resulting in decreased total dry matter accumulation for both tomato and wheat under the +5A degrees C future climate scenario. Under the +2A degrees C scenario, dry matter accumulation and resulting yield were also reduced for tomato, whereas no negative yield effects were observed for winter durum wheat. In general, limiting the global mean temperature change of 2A degrees C, the application of adaptation strategies (irrigation and nitrogen fertilization) showed a positive effect in minimizing the negative impacts of climate change on productivity of tomato cultivated in southern Italy.
|
|
Cammarano, D., Rötter, P., Ewert, F., Palosuo, T., Bindi, M., Kersebaum, K. C., et al. (2013). Challenges for Agro-Ecosystem Modelling in Climate Change Risk Assessment for major European Crops and Farming systems. (pp. 555–564).
|
|
Nendel, C., Ewert, F., Rötter, R. P., Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J. W., Hatfield, J. L., et al. (2013). Addressing challenges and uncertainties for, the use of agro-ecosystem models to, assess climate change impact and food security across scales..
|
