|
|
Kahiluoto, H., Kaseva, J., Hakala, K., Himanen, S. J., Jauhiainen, L., Rötter, R. P., et al. (2014). Cultivating resilience by empirically revealing response diversity. Glob. Environ. Change, 25, 186–193.
Abstract: Intensified climate and market turbulence requires resilience to a multitude of changes. Diversity reduces the sensitivity to disturbance and fosters the capacity to adapt to various future scenarios. What really matters is diversity of responses. Despite appeals to manage resilience, conceptual developments have not yet yielded a break-through in empirical applications. Here, we present an approach to empirically reveal the ‘response diversity’: the factors of change that are critical to a system are identified, and the response diversity is determined based on the documented component responses to these factors. We illustrate this approach and its added value using an example of securing food supply in the face of climate variability and change. This example demonstrates that quantifying response diversity allows for a new perspective: despite continued increase in cultivar diversity of barley, the diversity in responses to weather declined during the last decade in the regions where most of the barley is grown in Finland. This was due to greater homogeneity in responses among new cultivars than among older ones. Such a decline in the response diversity indicates increased vulnerability and reduced resilience. The assessment serves adaptive management in the face of both ecological and socioeconomic drivers. Supplier diversity in the food retail industry in order to secure affordable food in spite of global price volatility could represent another application. The approach is, indeed, applicable to any system for which it is possible to adopt empirical information regarding the response by its components to the critical factors of variability and change. Targeting diversification in response to critical change brings efficiency into diversity. We propose the generic procedure that is demonstrated in this study as a means to efficiently enhance resilience at multiple levels of agrifood systems and beyond. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
|
|
Kersebaum, C., Boote, J., Jorgenson, S., Kollas, C., Nendel, C., Wegehenkel, M., et al. (2014). A scheme to evaluate suitability of experimental data for model testing and improvement..
|
|
|
|
Kersebaum, C., Kollas, C., Bindi, M., Nendel, C., Ferrise, R., Moriondo, M., et al. (2014). Modelling complex crop rotations and management across sites in Europe with an ensemble of models..
|
|
|
|
Kersebaum, K. - C., Wallor, E., Ventrella, D., Cammarano, D., Choucheney, E., Ewert, F., et al. (2017). Comparison of site sensitivity of crop models using spatially variable field data from Precision Agriculture (Vol. 10).
Abstract: Site conditions and soil properties have a strong influence on impacts of climate change on crop production. Vulnerability of crop production to changing climate conditions is highly determined by the ability of the site to buffer periods of adverse climatic situations like water scarcity or excessive rainfall. Therefore, the capability of models to reflect crop responses and water and nutrient dynamics under different site conditions is essential to assess climate impact even on a regional scale. To test and improve sensitivity of models to various site properties such as soil variability and hydrological boundary conditions, spatial variable data sets from precision farming of two fields in Germany and Italy were provided to modellers. For the German 20 ha field soil and management data for 60 grid points for 3 years (2 years wheat, 1 year triticale) were provided. For the Italian field (12 ha) information for 100 grid points were available for three growing seasons of durum wheat. Modellers were asked to run their models using a) the model specific procedure to estimate soil hydraulic properties from texture using their standard procedure and use in step b) fixed values for field capacity and wilting point derived from soil taxonomy. Only the phenology and crop yield of one grid point provided for a basic calibration. In step c) information for all grid points of the first year (yield, soil water and mineral N content for Germany, yield, biomass and LAI for Italy) were provided. First results of five out of twelve participating models are compared against measured state variables analysing their site specific response and consistency across crop and soil variables. (Main text to be published in a peer-reviewed journal)
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
