|
|
Kersebaum, K. - C., Wallor, E., Ventrella, D., Cammarano, D., Choucheney, E., Ewert, F., et al. (2017). Comparison of site sensitivity of crop models using spatially variable field data from Precision Agriculture (Vol. 10).
Abstract: Site conditions and soil properties have a strong influence on impacts of climate change on crop production. Vulnerability of crop production to changing climate conditions is highly determined by the ability of the site to buffer periods of adverse climatic situations like water scarcity or excessive rainfall. Therefore, the capability of models to reflect crop responses and water and nutrient dynamics under different site conditions is essential to assess climate impact even on a regional scale. To test and improve sensitivity of models to various site properties such as soil variability and hydrological boundary conditions, spatial variable data sets from precision farming of two fields in Germany and Italy were provided to modellers. For the German 20 ha field soil and management data for 60 grid points for 3 years (2 years wheat, 1 year triticale) were provided. For the Italian field (12 ha) information for 100 grid points were available for three growing seasons of durum wheat. Modellers were asked to run their models using a) the model specific procedure to estimate soil hydraulic properties from texture using their standard procedure and use in step b) fixed values for field capacity and wilting point derived from soil taxonomy. Only the phenology and crop yield of one grid point provided for a basic calibration. In step c) information for all grid points of the first year (yield, soil water and mineral N content for Germany, yield, biomass and LAI for Italy) were provided. First results of five out of twelve participating models are compared against measured state variables analysing their site specific response and consistency across crop and soil variables. (Main text to be published in a peer-reviewed journal)
|
|
|
|
Yin, X. G., Kersebaum, K. C., Kollas, C., Manevski, K., Baby, S., Beaudoin, N., et al. (2017). Performance of process-based models for simulation of grain N in crop rotations across Europe. Agric. Syst., 154, 63–77.
Abstract: The accurate estimation of crop grain nitrogen (N; N in grain yield) is crucial for optimizing agricultural N management, especially in crop rotations. In the present study, 12 process-based models were applied to simulate the grain N of i) seven crops in rotations, ii) across various pedo-climatic and agro-management conditions in Europe, under both continuous simulation and single year simulation, and for iv) two calibration levels, namely minimal and detailed calibration. Generally, the results showed that the accuracy of the simulations in predicting grain N increased under detailed calibration. The models performed better in predicting the grain N of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), winter barley (Hordewn vulgare L.) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) compared to spring oat (Avena saliva L.), winter rye (Secale cereale L.), pea (Piswn sativum L.) and winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). These differences are linked to the intensity of parameterization with better parameterized crops showing lower prediction errors. The model performance was influenced by N fertilization and irrigation treatments, and a majority of the predictions were more accurate under low N and rainfed treatments. Moreover, the multi-model mean provided better predictions of grain N compared to any individual model. In regard to the Individual models, DAISY, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA and STICS are suitable for predicting grain N of the main crops in typical European crop rotations, which all performed well in both continuous simulation and single year simulation. Our results show that both the model initialization and the cover crop effects in crop rotations should be considered in order to achieve good performance of continuous simulation. Furthermore, the choice of either continuous simulation or single year simulation should be guided by the simulation objectives (e.g. grain yield, grain N content or N dynamics), the crop sequence (inclusion of legumes) and treatments (rate and type of N fertilizer) included in crop rotations and the model formalism.
|
|
|
|
Lana, M., Kersebaum, K. C., Kollas, C., Yin, X., Nendel, C., Manevski, K., et al. (2016). Effect of different levels of calibration in rotation schemes simulated in five European sites in a multi-model approach.. Berlin (Germany).
|
|
|
|
Olesen, J. E., Sharif, B., Plauborg, F., Yin, X., Bindi, M., Doro, L., et al. (2016). Comparison of wheat models and their sensitivity towards tillage and N fertilization with different calibration approaches.. Berlin (Germany).
|
|
|
|
Kersebaum, K., Kroes, J., Gobin, A., Takáč, J., Hlavinka, P., Trnka, M., et al. (2016). Assessing uncertainties of water footprints using an ensemble of crop growth models on winter wheat. Water, 8(12), 571.
Abstract: Crop productivity and water consumption form the basis to calculate the water footprint (WF) of a specific crop. Under current climate conditions, calculated evapotranspiration is related to observed crop yields to calculate WF. The assessment of WF under future climate conditions requires the simulation of crop yields adding further uncertainty. To assess the uncertainty of model based assessments of WF, an ensemble of crop models was applied to data from five field experiments across Europe. Only limited data were provided for a rough calibration, which corresponds to a typical situation for regional assessments, where data availability is limited. Up to eight models were applied for wheat. The coefficient of variation for the simulated actual evapotranspiration between models was in the range of 13%–19%, which was higher than the inter-annual variability. Simulated yields showed a higher variability between models in the range of 17%–39%. Models responded differently to elevated CO2 in a FACE (Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment) experiment, especially regarding the reduction of water consumption. The variability of calculated WF between models was in the range of 15%–49%. Yield predictions contributed more to this variance than the estimation of water consumption. Transpiration accounts on average for 51%–68% of the total actual evapotranspiration.
|
|
