|
|
Hoffmann, H., Zhao, G., Van Bussel, L. G. J., Enders, A., Specka, X., Sosa, C., et al. (2014). Effects of climate input data aggregation on modelling regional crop yields. CropM International Symposium and Workshop.
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann, H., Zhao, G., Van Bussel, L., Enders, A., Specka, X., Sosa, C., et al. (2014). Effects of climate input data aggregation on modelling regional crop yields. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Crop models can be sensitive to climate input data aggregation and this response may differ among models. This should be considered when applying field-scale models for assessment of climate change impacts on larger spatial scales or when coupling models across scales. In order to evaluate these effects systematically, an ensemble of ten crop models was run with climate input data on different spatial aggregations ranging from 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100 km horizontal resolution for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Models were minimally calibrated to typical sowing and harvest dates, and crop yields observed in the region, subsequently simulating potential, water-limited and nitrogen-limited production of winter wheat and silage maize for 1982-2011. Outputs were analysed for 19 variables (yield, evapotranspiration, soil organic carbon, etc.). In this study the sensitivity of the individual models and the model ensemble in response to input data aggregation is assessed for crop yield. Results show that the mean yield of the region calculated from climate time series of 1 km horizontal resolution changes only little when using climate input data of higher aggregation levels for most models. However, yield frequency distributions change with aggregation, resembling observed data better with increasing resolution. With few exceptions, these results apply to the two crops and three production situations (potential, water-, nitrogen-limited) and across models including the model ensemble, regardless of differences among models in simulated yield levels and spatial yield patterns. Results of this study improve the confidence of using crop models at varying scales.
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann, H., Zhao, G., Constantin, J., Raynal, H., Wallach, D., Coucheney, E., et al. (2015). Effects of soil and climate input data aggregation on modelling regional crop yields. MACSUR Science Conference.
|
|
|
|
Webber, H., Kahiluoto, H., Rötter, R. P., & Ewert, F. (2014). Enhancing climate resilience of cropping systems. In J. Fuhrer, & P. J. Gregory (Eds.), (pp. 167–185). Climate Change Impact and Adaptation in Agricultural Systems. Wallingford: CAB International.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Estimating model prediction error: Should you treat predictions as fixed or random. Env. Model. Softw., 84, 529–539.
Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. We compare two criteria of prediction error; MSEPfixed, which evaluates mean squared error of prediction for a model with fixed structure, parameters and inputs, and MSEPuncertain(X), which evaluates mean squared error averaged over the distributions of model structure, inputs and parameters. Comparison of model outputs with data can be used to estimate the former. The latter has a squared bias term, which can be estimated using hindcasts, and a model variance term, which can be estimated from a simulation experiment. The separate contributions to MSEPuncertain(X) can be estimated using a random effects ANOVA. It is argued that MSEPuncertain(X) is the more informative uncertainty criterion, because it is specific to each prediction situation.
|
|
