| Home | << 1 2 >> |
|
Salo, T. J., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. C., Nendel, C., Angulo, C., Ewert, F., et al. (2016). Comparing the performance of 11 crop simulation models in predicting yield response to nitrogen fertilization. J. Agric. Sci., 154(7), 1218–1240.
Abstract: Eleven widely used crop simulation models (APSIM, CERES, CROPSYST, COUP, DAISY, EPIC, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) were tested using spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) data set under varying nitrogen (N) fertilizer rates from three experimental years in the boreal climate of Jokioinen, Finland. This is the largest standardized crop model inter-comparison under different levels of N supply to date. The models were calibrated using data from 2002 and 2008, of which 2008 included six N rates ranging from 0 to 150 kg N/ha. Calibration data consisted of weather, soil, phenology, leaf area index (LAI) and yield observations. The models were then tested against new data for 2009 and their performance was assessed and compared with both the two calibration years and the test year. For the calibration period, root mean square error between measurements and simulated grain dry matter yields ranged from 170 to 870 kg/ha. During the test year 2009, most models failed to accurately reproduce the observed low yield without N fertilizer as well as the steep yield response to N applications. The multi-model predictions were closer to observations than most single-model predictions, but multi-model mean could not correct systematic errors in model simulations. Variation in soil N mineralization and LAI development due to differences in weather not captured by the models most likely was the main reason for their unsatisfactory performance. This suggests the need for model improvement in soil N mineralization as a function of soil temperature and moisture. Furthermore, specific weather event impacts such as low temperatures after emergence in 2009, tending to enhance tillering, and a high precipitation event just before harvest in 2008, causing possible yield penalties, were not captured by any of the models compared in the current study.
|
|
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.
|
|
Mäkinen, H., Kaseva, J., Trnka, M., Balek, J., Kersebaum, K. C., Nendel, C., et al. (2018). Sensitivity of European wheat to extreme weather. Field Crops Research, 222, 209–217.
Abstract: The frequency and intensity of extreme weather is increasing concomitant with changes in the global climate change. Although wheat is the most important food crop in Europe, there is currently no comprehensive empirical information available regarding the sensitivity of European wheat to extreme weather. In this study, we assessed the sensitivity of European wheat yields to extreme weather related to phenology (sowing, heading) in cultivar trials across Europe (latitudes 37.21 degrees to 61.34 degrees and longitudes- 6.02 degrees to 26.24 degrees) during the period 1991-2014. All the observed agro-climatic extremes (>= 31 degrees C, >= 35 degrees C, or drought around heading; >= 35 degrees C from heading to maturity; excessive rainfall; heavy rainfall and low global radiation) led to marked yield penalties in a selected set of European cultivars, whereas few cultivars were found to with no yield penalty in such conditions. There were no European wheat cultivars that responded positively (+ 10%) to drought after sowing, or frost during winter (- 15 degrees C and – 20 degrees C). Positive responses to extremes were often shown by cultivars associated with specific regions, such as good performance under high temperatures by southern-origin cultivars. Consequently, a major future breeding challenge will be to evaluate the potential of combining such cultivar properties with other properties required under different growing conditions with, for example, long day conditions at higher latitudes, when the intensity and frequency of extremes rapidly increase.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|