| Home | [1–10] << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >> [21–21] |
|
Kersebaum, K. C. (2012). Analysing climate change impact on agriculture (in German)..
|
|
Kersebaum, K. C. (2015). Simulating crop rotations and management across climatic zones in Europe – an intercomparison study using fifteen models (Vol. 5).
Abstract: Process based crop simulation models are widely used to assess crop production under current or future climate conditions. Most studies on climate impacts on crop growth are so far focussed on single crops and single-year simulations. However, it is known that the position of crops within a rotation can influence crop growth significantly due to carry-over effects between seasons. We compared crop models on crop rotation effects from five sites across Central Europe providing in total data of 301 cropping seasons and treatments. Treatments comprised irrigation, nitrogen (N) fertilisation, atmospheric [CO2], tillage, residue management, cover crops and soils. Crop rotations were simulated with 15 crop models as single-year simulations and/or continuous simulations over whole crop rotations in “restricted calibration” runs. Lower RMSE between observed and simulated crop yields were obtained for continuous runs as compared to single-year runs. Relatively low carry-over effects were observed due to equilibration of soil water over winter and high N fertilisation levels. Consistently, a sub-set of models applied to an additional rainfed Mediterranean site reproduced larger carry-over effects of soil water. Irrigation, N supply, cover crops and atmospheric [CO2] showed clearer effects than tillage and crop residue management. Model performance varied distinctly between crops showing the necessity to provide experimental data for model calibration also for less prominent crops. No Label
|
|
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.
|
|
Kersebaum, K., & C,. (2014). Results of uncalibrated model runs available (ROTATIONEFFECTS) (Vol. 3).
Abstract: The study ROTATIONEFFECT aims to compare the output of different models simulating field data sets with multi-year crop rotations including different treatments. Data sets for 5 locations in Europe were distributed to 19 interested modeller groups comprising a total of 201 crop growth seasons. In a first step only minimal information for calibration were provided to the modellers. In total 14 modelling teams sent their “uncalibrated” results as single-year calculations and/or calculations of rotation depending on the capability of the model. 7-10 models were capable to run the rotations as continuous runs. Up to 12 models provided single year simulations of at least one crop. Comparing results of models which provided both single year and continuous runs, show a little lower root mean square error for the continuous rotations runs. Cereal crop yields were generally better simulated than tuber/beet yields. Additionally, the models’ response to various treatments (irrigation/rainfed, nitrogen level, CO2 level, residue management/ tillage, catch crops) were compared to observed differences. First indicators of model performance have been developed and presented at international conferences. No Label
|
|
Kersebaum, K., & C. (2015). Model intercomparison for calibrated models (Vol. 4).
Abstract: The study ROTATIONEFFECT aims to compare the output of different models simulating field data sets with multi-year crop rotations including different treatments.Within the first Step (1a2a) data sets (comprising a total of 301 crop growth seasons) for 5 locations in Europe were distributed to 15 interested modeller groups.For this step only minimal information for calibration were provided to the modellers. In total 15 modelling teams sent their “uncalibrated” results as single-year calculations and/or continuous calculations of rotation depending on the capability of the model. Results have been evaluated and the paper submitted (European Journal of Agronomy).Now, within the 2nd step (1b2b) modellers were provided with more information on the crop for the calibration of models. Again, results of calibrated runs were collected.6 models were capable to run the rotations as continuous runs and another set of 6 models provided single year simulations.A first overview of the improvement of predictions due to calibration has been produced. Result files have been uploaded to the web platform for CropM results at Aarhus University (Work package C2 – data management). No Label
|