| Home | << 1 2 3 >> |
|
Hlavinka, P., Olesen, J. E., Kersebaum, K. - C., Trnka, M., Pohankova, E., Stella, T., et al. (2017). Modelling long term effects of cropping and managements systems on soil organic matter, C/N dynamics and crop growth (Vol. 10).
Abstract: While simulation of cropping systems over a few years might reflect well the short term effects of management and cultivation, long term effects on soil properties and their consequences for crop growth and matter fluxes are not captured. Especially the effect on soil carbon sequestration/depletion is addressed by this task. Simulations of an ensemble of crop models are performed as transient runs over a period of 120 year using observed weather from three stations in Czech Republic (1961-2010) and transient long time climate change scenarios (2011-2080) from five GCM of the CMIP5 ensemble to assess the effect of different cropping and management systems on carbon sequestration, matter fluxes and crop production in an integrative way. Two cropping systems are regarded comprising two times winter wheat, silage maize, spring barley and oilseed rape. Crop rotations differ regarding their organic input from crop residues, nitrogen fertilization and implementation of catch crops. Models are applied for two soil types with different water holding capacity. Cultivation and nutrient management is adapted using management rules related to weather and soil conditions. Data of phenology and crop yield from the region of the regarded crops were provided to calibrate the models for crops of the rotations. Twelve models were calibrated in this first step. For the transient long term runs results of four models were submitted so far. Outputs are crop yields, nitrogen uptake, soil water and mineral nitrogen contents, as well as water and nitrogen fluxes to the atmosphere and groundwater. Changes in the carbon stocks and the consequences for nitrogen mineralisation, N fertilization and emissions also considered.
|
|
Hoffmann, M. P., Haakana, M., Asseng, S., Höhn, J. G., Palosuo, T., Ruiz-Ramos, M., et al. (2017). How does inter-annual variability of attainable yield affect the magnitude of yield gaps for wheat and maize? An analysis at ten sites. Agric. Syst., , in press.
Abstract: Highlights • The larger simulated attainable yield for a specific crop season, the larger the yield gap. • Average size of the yield gap is not affected by the inter-annual variability of attainable yield. • Technology levels (resource input and accessibility) determine average yield gap. • To reduce yield gaps in rainfed environments, farmers need to improve season-specific crop management. Abstract Provision of food security in the face of increasing global food demand requires narrowing of the gap between actual farmer’s yield and maximum attainable yield. So far, assessments of yield gaps have focused on average yield over 5–10 years, but yield gaps can vary substantially between crop seasons. In this study we hypothesized that climate-induced inter-annual yield variability and associated risk is a major barrier for farmers to invest, i.e. increase inputs to narrow the yield gap. We evaluated the importance of inter-annual attainable yield variability for the magnitude of the yield gap by utilizing data for wheat and maize at ten sites representing some major food production systems and a large range of climate and soil conditions across the world. Yield gaps were derived from the difference of simulated attainable yields and regional recorded farmer yields for 1981 to 2010. The size of the yield gap did not correlate with the amplitude of attainable yield variability at a site, but was rather associated with the level of available resources such as labor, fertilizer and plant protection inputs. For the sites in Africa, recorded yield reached only 20% of the attainable yield, while for European, Asian and North American sites it was 56–84%. Most sites showed that the higher the attainable yield of a specific season the larger was the yield gap. This significant relationship indicated that farmers were not able to take advantage of favorable seasonal weather conditions. To reduce yield gaps in the different environments, reliable seasonal weather forecasts would be required to allow farmers to manage each seasonal potential, i.e. overcoming season-specific yield limitations.
Area: CropM
|
|
Hoffmann, M. P., Haakana, M., Asseng, S., Höhn, J. G., Palosuo, T., Ruiz-Ramos, M., et al. (2017). How does inter-annual variability of attainable yield affect the magnitude of yield gaps for wheat and maize? An analysis at ten sites. Agric. Syst., 159, 199–208.
Abstract: Highlights • The larger simulated attainable yield for a specific crop season, the larger the yield gap. • Average size of the yield gap is not affected by the inter-annual variability of attainable yield. • Technology levels (resource input and accessibility) determine average yield gap. • To reduce yield gaps in rainfed environments, farmers need to improve season-specific crop management. Abstract Provision of food security in the face of increasing global food demand requires narrowing of the gap between actual farmer’s yield and maximum attainable yield. So far, assessments of yield gaps have focused on average yield over 5–10 years, but yield gaps can vary substantially between crop seasons. In this study we hypothesized that climate-induced inter-annual yield variability and associated risk is a major barrier for farmers to invest, i.e. increase inputs to narrow the yield gap. We evaluated the importance of inter-annual attainable yield variability for the magnitude of the yield gap by utilizing data for wheat and maize at ten sites representing some major food production systems and a large range of climate and soil conditions across the world. Yield gaps were derived from the difference of simulated attainable yields and regional recorded farmer yields for 1981 to 2010. The size of the yield gap did not correlate with the amplitude of attainable yield variability at a site, but was rather associated with the level of available resources such as labor, fertilizer and plant protection inputs. For the sites in Africa, recorded yield reached only 20% of the attainable yield, while for European, Asian and North American sites it was 56–84%. Most sites showed that the higher the attainable yield of a specific season the larger was the yield gap. This significant relationship indicated that farmers were not able to take advantage of favorable seasonal weather conditions. To reduce yield gaps in the different environments, reliable seasonal weather forecasts would be required to allow farmers to manage each seasonal potential, i.e. overcoming season-specific yield limitations.
|
|
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)
|
|
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.
|