| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–15] |
|
Rötter, R. P., & Semenov, M. A. (2014). Development of methods for the probabilistic assessment of climate change impacts on crop production (Vol. 3).
Abstract: Various attempts have been made to determine the relative importance of uncertainties in climate change impact assessments stemming from climate projections and crop models, respectively, and to analyse yield outputs probabilistically. For example, in the ENSEMBLES project, probabilistic climate projections (Harris et al. 2010) have been applied in conjunction with impact response surfaces (IRS), constructed by using impact models, to estimate the future likelihood (risk) of exceeding critical thresholds of crop yield impact (see, Fronzek et al., 2011, for an explanation of the method). In this task, we aimed to further develop and operationalize these methods and testing them in different case study regions in Europe. The method combines results of a sensitivity analysis of (one or more) impact model(s) with probabilistic projections of future temperature and precipitation (Fronzek et al., 2011). Such an overlay is one way of portraying probabilistic estimates of future impacts. By further accounting for the uncertainties in crop and biophysical parameters (using perturbed parameter approaches), the outcome represents an ensemble of impact risk estimates, encapsulating both climate and crop model uncertainties. No Label
|
|
Pirttioja, N., Carter, T. R., & 47 al., & Rötter, R. P. (2015). A crop model ensemble analysis of temperature and precipitation effects on wheat yield across a European transect using impact response surfaces (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Impact response surfaces (IRSs) of spring and winter wheat yields were constructed from a 26-member ensemble of process-based crop simulation models for sites in Finland, Germany and Spain across a latitudinal transect in Europe. The sensitivity of modelled yield to systematic increments of changes in temperature (-2 to +9°C) and precipitation (-50 to +50%) was tested by modifying values of 1981–2010 baseline weather.In spite of large differences in simulated yield responses to both baseline and changed climate between models, sites, crops and years, several common messages emerged. Ensemble average yields decline with higher temperatures (3–7% per 1°C) and decreased precipitation (3–9% per 10% decrease), but benefit from increased precipitation (0-8% per 10% increase). Yields are more sensitive to temperature than precipitation changes at the Finnish site while sensitivities are mixed at the German and Spanish sites. Precipitation effects diminish under higher temperature changes. Inter-model variability is highest for baseline climate at the Spanish site, but relatively insensitive to changed climate. Modelled responses diverge most at the Finnish and German sites for winter wheat under temperature change. The IRS pattern of yield reliability tracks average yield levels. Inter-annual yield variability is more sensitive to precipitation than temperature, except at the Spanish site for spring wheat.Optimal temperatures for present-day cultivars are close to the baseline under Finnish conditions but below the baseline at the German and Spanish sites. This suggests that adoption of later maturing cultivars with higher temperature requirements might already be advantageous, and increasingly so under future warming. No Label
|
|
Ewert, F., Rötter, R. P., Bindi, M., Webber, H., Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K., et al. (2015). Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change (Vol. 6).
Abstract: The complexity of risks posed by climate change and possible adaptations for crop production has called for integrated assessment and modelling (IAM) approaches linking biophysical and economic models. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the present state of crop modelling to assess climate change risks to food production and to which extent crop models comply with IAM demands. Considerable progress has been made in modelling effects of climate variables, where crop models best satisfy IAM demands. Demands are partly satisfied for simulating commonly required assessment variables. However, progress on the number of simulated crops, uncertainty propagation related to model parameters and structure, adaptations and scaling are less advanced and lagging behind IAM demands. The limitations are considered substantial and apply to a different extent to all crop models. Overcoming these limitations will require joint efforts, and consideration of novel modelling approaches. 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.
|
|
Rötter, R. P. (2014). Cross-cutting uncertainties in MACSUR impact projections. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Projections into the future, such as climate change impact projections on crop production for a given region, or, on global food prices and trade are inherently uncertain. Uncertainty does not fall within a single discipline but is dealt with by a wide variety of disciplines, themes and problem domains. Model uncertainty pertaining to the impact modelling chain from climate via crop and livestock to economic and trade modelling is only part of the overall uncertainty*. There is also scenario uncertainty and many other known and unknown “unknowns”1 to be considered in efforts such as MACSUR and its themes (CropM, LiveM, TradeM) to advance model-based integrated assessment of climate change risk assessment for agriculture and food security. Propagation of uncertainties along the climate change impact modelling chain has been portrayed as “uncertainty cascade” 2. We will present different basic approaches for evaluating uncertainty in models. So far, studies addressing quantification and reporting of uncertainties in impact projections still largely focus on two major sources, i.e. the shares originating from climate modelling and from crop modelling. However, a more comprehensive treatment of uncertainty and how it is reported is urgently needed.
|