|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
Ruiz-Ramos, M., Ferrise, R., Rodríguez, A., Lorite, I. J., Tao, F., Pirttioja, N., et al. (2016). An ensemble of projections of wheat adaptation to climate change in europe analyzed with impact response surfaces.. Berlin (Germany).
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Kollas, C., Kersebaum, K. C., Nendel, C., Manevski, K., Müller, C., Palosuo, T., et al. (2015). Crop rotation modelling—A European model intercomparison. European Journal of Agronomy, 70, 98–111.
Abstract: • First model inter-comparison on crop rotations. • Continuous simulation of multi-year crop rotations yields outperformed single-year simulation. • Low accuracy of yield predictions in less commonly modelled crops such as potato, radish, grass vegetation. • Multi-model mean prediction was found to minimise the likely error arising from single-model predictions. • The representation of intermediate crops and carry-over effects in the models require further research efforts.
Diversification of crop rotations is considered an option to increase the resilience of European crop production under climate change. So far, however, many crop simulation studies have focused on predicting single crops in separate one-year simulations. Here, we compared the capability of fifteen crop growth simulation models to predict yields in crop rotations at five sites across Europe under minimal calibration. Crop rotations encompassed 301 seasons of ten crop types common to European agriculture and a diverse set of treatments (irrigation, fertilisation, CO2 concentration, soil types, tillage, residues, intermediate or catch crops). We found that the continuous simulation of multi-year crop rotations yielded results of slightly higher quality compared to the simulation of single years and single crops. Intermediate crops (oilseed radish and grass vegetation) were simulated less accurately than main crops (cereals). The majority of models performed better for the treatments of increased CO2 and nitrogen fertilisation than for irrigation and soil-related treatments. The yield simulation of the multi-model ensemble reduced the error compared to single-model simulations. The low degree of superiority of continuous simulations over single year simulation was caused by (a) insufficiently parameterised crops, which affect the performance of the following crop, and (b) the lack of growth-limiting water and/or nitrogen in the crop rotations under investigation. In order to achieve a sound representation of crop rotations, further research is required to synthesise existing knowledge of the physiology of intermediate crops and of carry-over effects from the preceding to the following crop, and to implement/improve the modelling of processes that condition these effects.
|
|
|
|
Ginaldi, F., Bindi, M., Marta, A. D., Ferrise, R., Orlandini, S., & Danuso, F. (2016). Interoperability of agronomic long term experiment databases and crop model intercomparison: the Italian experience. Europ. J. Agron., 77, 209–222.
Abstract: • ICFAR-DB organises and stores data from 16 Italian long term agronomic experiments. • ICFAR-DB fulfils interoperability using system dynamics ontology and AgMIP nomenclature. • ICFAR information management system moves closer data to model and vice versa. The IC-FAR national project (Linking long term observatories with crop system modelling for better understanding of climate change impact, and adaptation strategies for Italian cropping systems) initiated in 2013 with the primary aim of implementing data from 16 long term Italian agronomic experiments in a common, interoperable structure. The building of a common database (DB) structure demands a harmonization process aimed at standardising concepts, language and data in order to make them clear, and has to produce a well-documented and easily available tool for the whole scientific community. The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) has made a great effort in this sense, improving the vocabulary developed by the International Consortium for Agricultural Systems Applications (ICASA) and defining harmonization procedures. Nowadays, these ones have also to be addressed to facilitate the extraction of input files for crop model simulations. Substantially, two alternative directions can be pursued: adapting data to models, building a standard storage structure and using translators that convert DB information to model input files; or adapting models to data, using the same storage structure for feeding modelling solutions constituted by combining model components, re-implemented in the same model platform. The ICFAR information management system simplifies data entry, improves model input extraction (implementing System Dynamics ontology), and satisfies both the paradigms. This has required the development of different software tools: ICFAR-DB for data entry and storage; a model input extractor for feeding the crop models (MoLInEx); SEMoLa platform for building modelling solutions and performing via scripts the model intercomparison. The use of the standard AgMIP/ICASA nomenclature in the ICFAR-DB and the opportunity to create files with MoLInex for feeding AgMIP model translators allow full system interoperability.
|
|
