|
|
Boote, K. J., Porter, C., Jones, J. W., Thorburn, P. J., Kersebaum, K. C., Hoogenboom, G., et al. (2015). Sentinel site data for crop model improvement – definition and characterization. In J. L. Hatfield, & D. Fleisher (Eds.), (Vol. Advances in Agricultural Systems Modeling (7)). Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA.
|
|
|
|
Boote, K. J., Porter, C., Jones, J. W., Thorburn, P. J., Kersebaum, K. C., Hoogenboom, G., et al. (2016). Sentinel site data for crop model improvement—definition and characterization. In J. L. Hatfield, & D. Fleisher (Eds.), Improving Modeling Tools to Assess Climate Change Effects on Crop Response. Advances in Agricultural Systems Modeling, 7.
Abstract: Crop models are increasingly being used to assess the impacts of future climate change on production and food security. High quality, site-specific data on weather, soils, management, and cultivar are needed for those model applications. Also important is that model development, evaluation, improvement, and calibration require additional high quality, site-specific measurements on crop yield, growth, phenology, and ancillary traits. We review the evolution of minimum data set requirements for agroecosystem modeling and then describe the characteristics and ranking of sentinel site data needed for crop model improvement, calibration, and application. We in the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), propose to rank sentinel site data sets as platinum, gold, silver, and copper, based on the degree of true site-specific measurement of weather, soils, management, crop yield, as well as the quality, comprehensiveness, quantity, accuracy, and value. For example, to be ranked platinum, the weather and soil characterization must be measured on-site, and all management inputs must be known. Dataset ranking will be lower for weather measured off-site or soil traits estimated from soil mapping. Ranking also depends on the intended purposes for data use. If the purpose is to improve a crop model for response to water or N, then additional observations are necessary, such as initial soil water, initial soil inorganic N, and plant N uptake during the growing season to be ranked platinum. Rankings are enhanced by presence of multiple treatments and sites. Examples of platinum-, gold-, and silver-quality data sets for model improvement and calibration uses are illustrated.
|
|
|
|
Cammarano, D., Rötter, R. P., Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Wallach, D., Martre, P., et al. (2016). Uncertainty of wheat water use: Simulated patterns and sensitivity to temperature and CO2. Field Crops Research, 198, 80–92.
Abstract: Projected global warming and population growth will reduce future water availability for agriculture. Thus, it is essential to increase the efficiency in using water to ensure crop productivity. Quantifying crop water use (WU; i.e. actual evapotranspiration) is a critical step towards this goal. Here, sixteen wheat simulation models were used to quantify sources of model uncertainty and to estimate the relative changes and variability between models for simulated WU, water use efficiency (WUE, WU per unit of grain dry mass produced), transpiration efficiency (Teff, transpiration per kg of unit of grain yield dry mass produced), grain yield, crop transpiration and soil evaporation at increased temperatures and elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations ([CO2]). The greatest uncertainty in simulating water use, potential evapotranspiration, crop transpiration and soil evaporation was due to differences in how crop transpiration was modelled and accounted for 50% of the total variability among models. The simulation results for the sensitivity to temperature indicated that crop WU will decline with increasing temperature due to reduced growing seasons. The uncertainties in simulated crop WU, and in particularly due to uncertainties in simulating crop transpiration, were greater under conditions of increased temperatures and with high temperatures in combination with elevated atmospheric [CO2] concentrations. Hence the simulation of crop WU, and in particularly crop transpiration under higher temperature, needs to be improved and evaluated with field measurements before models can be used to simulate climate change impacts on future crop water demand.
|
|
|
|
Ruane, A. C., Hudson, N. I., Asseng, S., Camarrano, D., Ewert, F., Martre, P., et al. (2016). Multi-wheat-model ensemble responses to interannual climate variability. Env. Model. Softw., 81, 86–101.
Abstract: We compare 27 wheat models’ yield responses to interannual climate variability, analyzed at locations in Argentina, Australia, India, and The Netherlands as part of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Wheat Pilot. Each model simulated 1981-2010 grain yield, and we evaluate results against the interannual variability of growing season temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation. The amount of information used for calibration has only a minor effect on most models’ climate response, and even small multi-model ensembles prove beneficial. Wheat model clusters reveal common characteristics of yield response to climate; however models rarely share the same cluster at all four sites indicating substantial independence. Only a weak relationship (R-2 <= 0.24) was found between the models’ sensitivities to interannual temperature variability and their response to long-term warming, suggesting that additional processes differentiate climate change impacts from observed climate variability analogs and motivating continuing analysis and model development efforts. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Nissanka, S. P., Karunaratne, A. S., Weerakoon, W. M. W., Thorburn, P. J., Boote, K. J., et al. (2016). Accounting for both parameter and model structure uncertainty in crop model predictions of phenology: A case study on rice. European Journal of Agronomy, .
Abstract: We consider predictions of the impact of climate warming on rice development times in Sri Lanka. The major emphasis is on the uncertainty of the predictions, and in particular on the estimation of mean squared error of prediction. Three contributions to mean squared error are considered. The first is parameter uncertainty that results from model calibration. To take proper account of the complex data structure, generalized least squares is used to estimate the parameters and the variance-covariance matrix of the parameter estimators. The second contribution is model structure uncertainty, which we estimate using two different models. An ANOVA analysis is used to separate the contributions of parameter and model uncertainty to mean squared error. The third contribution is model error, which is estimated using hindcasts. Mean squared error of prediction of time from emergence to maturity, for baseline +2 °C, is estimated as 108 days2, with model error contributing 86 days2, followed by model structure uncertainty which contributes 15 days2 and parameter uncertainty which contributes 7 days2. We also show how prediction uncertainty is reduced if prediction concerns development time averaged over years, or the difference in development time between baseline and warmer temperatures.
|
|
