|
Ewert, F., van Bussel, L. G. J., Zhao, G., Hoffmann, H., Gaiser, T., Specka, X., et al. (2015). Uncertainties in Scaling up Crop Models for Large Area Climate-change Impact Assessments. In C. Rosenzweig, & D. Hillel (Eds.), (pp. 261–277). Handbook of Climate Change and Agroecosystems: The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Integrated Crop and Economic Assessments — Joint Publication with American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America (In 2 Parts), ICP Series on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, . London: Imperial College Press.
|
Dibari, C., Argenti, G., Catolfi, F., Moriondo, M., Staglianò, N., & Bindi, M. (2014). Climate change impacts on natural pasturelands of Italian Apennines. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: As well as the entire Mediterranean area, the Italian Apennines have been affected by increasing temperatures, rainfall extreme events and decreases in annual precipitation due to climate change. Moreover, permanent grasslands, species-diverse ecosystems characterizing the marginal areas of the Apennines landscape, are acknowledged as very sensitive and vulnerable to climate variation. Building on these premises, statistical classification models coupled with data integration by GIS techniques, were used to territorially assess future climate change impacts on pastoral communities on the Italian Apennines chain. Specifically, a machine learning approach (Random Forest – RF), firstly calibrated for the present period and then applied to future conditions, as projected by HadCM3 General Circulation Model (GCM), was used to simulate potential expansion/reduction and/or altitudinal shifts of the Apennine pasturelands in two time slices, centred on 2050 and 2080, under A2 and B2 SRES scenarios. RF classification model proved to be robust and very efficient to predict lands suited to pastures with regards to present period (classification error: 12%). Furthermore, according to RF simulations, relevant reductions (46 and 34%) of areas potentially suitable for pastoral resource are expected under A2 at the middle and end of the century, respectively, as depicted by the GCM and SRES scenarios. Moreover, progressive upwards shifts are predicted by the model under both SRES scenarios. These reductions will likely interest the central area of the chain threatening the typical and unique herbaceous biodiversity characterizing the Apennine pasturelands.
|
Kersebaum, K. C., Kollas, C., Bindi, M., Palosuo, T., Wu, L., Sharif, B., et al. (2014). Model inter-comparison on crop rotation effects – an intermediate report. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Data of diverse crop rotations from five locations across Europe were distributed to modelers to investigate the capability of models to handle complex crop rotations and management interactions. Crop rotations comprise various main crops (winter/spring wheat, winter/spring barley, rye, oat, maize, sugar beet, oil seed rape and potatoes) plus several catch crops. The experimental setup of the datasets included treatments such as modified soils, crops exchanged within the rotations, irrigation/rainfed, nitrogen fertilization, residue management, tillage and atmospheric CO2 concentration. 19 modeling teams registered to model either the whole rotation or single crops. Models which are capable to run the whole rotation should provide transient as well as single year simulations with a reset of initial conditions. In the first step only initial soil conditions (water and soil mineral N) of the first year and key phenological stages were provided to the modelers. For calibration, crop yields and biomass were provided for selected years but not for all seasons. In total the combination of treatments and seasons results in 301 years of simulation. Results were analyzed to evaluate the effect of transient simulation versus single-year simulation regarding crop yield, biomass, water and nitrogen balance components. Model results will be evaluated crop-specifically to identify crops with highest uncertainty and potential for model improvement. Full data will be provided to modelers for model-improvement and results will provide insights into model capabilities to reproduce treatments and crops. Further, the question of error propagation along the transient simulation of crop rotations will be addressed.
|
Ferrise, R., Moriondo, M., Pasqui, M., Primicerio, J., Toscano, P., Semenov, M., et al. (2014). Within-season predictions of durum wheat yield over the Mediterranean Basin. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Crop yield is the result of the interactions between weather in the incoming season and how farmers decide to manage and protect their crops. According to Jones et al. (2000), uncertainties in the weather of the forthcoming season leads farmers to lose some productivity by taking management decisions based on their own experience of the climate or by adopting conservative strategies aimed at reducing the risks. Accordingly, predicting crop yield in advance, in response to different managements, environments and weathers would assist farm-management decisions(Lawless and Semenov, 2005). Following the approach described by Semenov and Doblas-Reyes (2007), this study aimed at assessing the utility of different seasonal forecasting methodologies in predicting durum wheat yield at 10 different sites across the Mediterranean Basin. The crop model, SiriusQuality (Martre et al., 2006), was used to compute wheat yield over a 10-years period. First, the model was run with a set of observed weather data to calculate the reference yield distributions. Then, starting from 1st January, yield predictions were produced at a monthly time-step using seasonal forecasts. The results were compared with the reference yields to assess the efficacy of the forecasting methodologies to estimate within-season yields. The results indicate that durum wheat phenology and yield can be accurately predicted under Mediterranean conditions well before crop maturity, although some differences between the sites and the forecasting methodologies were revealed. Useful information can be thus provided for helping farmers to reduce negative impacts or take advantage from favorable conditions.
|
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.
|
