|
|
Kollas, C., Kersebaum, C., Bindi, M., Wu, L., Sharif, B., Öztürk, I., et al. (2014). Improving yield predictions by crop rotation modelling? a multi-model comparison..
|
|
|
|
Kersebaum, C., Kollas, C., Bindi, M., Nendel, C., Ferrise, R., Moriondo, M., et al. (2014). Modelling complex crop rotations and management across sites in Europe with an ensemble of models..
|
|
|
|
Hlavinka, P., Kersebaum, K. C., Dubrovský, M., Pohanková, E., Balek, J., Žalud, Z., et al. (2014). Water balance and yield estimates for field crop rotations present versus future conditions based on transient scenarios..
|
|
|
|
Pohanková, E., Hlavinka, P., Kersebaum, K. C., Dubrovský, M., Fischer, M., Balek, J., et al. (2015). Pilot study: Field crop rotations modeling under present and future conditions in the Czech Republic using HERMES model (Vol. 5).
Abstract: The aim of this study is to compare the water and organic material balance, yields and other aspects estimated within crop rotations by the Hermes crop model for present and future climatic conditions in the Czech Republic. Moreover, this is a pilot study for the complex and continuous crop rotations modeling (using both single crop models and ensembles) in connection with transient climate change scenarios. For this purpose, three locations representing important agricultural regions of the Czech Republic (with different climatic conditions) were selected. The crop rotation (including spring barley, silage maize, winter wheat, winter rape, and winter wheat in the listed order) was simulated from 1981-2080. The period 1981-2010 was covered by measured meteorological data, and the period 2011-2080 was represented by a transient synthetic weather series from the weather generator M&Rfi. The generated data was based on five circulation models representing an ensemble of 18 CMIP3 global circulation models to preserve to a large degree the uncertainty of the original ensemble. Two types of crop management were compared, and the influences of soil quality, increasing atmospheric CO2 and magnitude of adaptation measure (in the form of sowing date changes) were also considered. According to the results, if a “dry” scenario (such as GFCM21) would occur, then all the C3 crops produced in drier regions would be devastated in a significant number of seasons; for example, by the 2070s, up to 19.5%, 21.5% and 47.0% of seasons with winter rape, spring barley and winter wheat, respectively, would have a yield level below 50% of the present yield. Negative impacts are likely even on premium-quality soils regardless of the use of a flexible sowing date and accounting for increasing CO2 concentrations. Moreover, in some cases, the use of catch crops can have negative impacts, exacerbating the soil water deficit for the subsequent crops. This study (submitted to Climate Research journal) will be used as a pilot for subsequent activities. In this area, following calculations (the same set of stations and updated climate scenarios) using growth models ensemble (currently includes 12 modeling approaches) started to estimate uncertainty aspects. Consequently, the analysis within wider range of conditions (across continents) and farming methods will be conducted. No Label
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
