|
|
Ruiz-Ramos, M., Ferrise, R., Rodríguez, A., Lorite, I. J., Pirttioja, N., Fronzek, S., et al. (2016). Adaptation response surfaces from an ensemble of wheat projections under climate change in Europe.. Vienna (Austria).
|
|
|
|
Ruiz-Ramos, M., Ferrise, R., Rodríguez, A., Lorite, I. J., Tao, F., Pirttioja, N., et al. (2016). Wheat yield potential in Europe under climate change explored by adaptation response surfaces.. Montpellier (France).
|
|
|
|
Trnka, M., Hlavinka, P., & Semenov, M. A. (2015). Adaptation options for wheat in Europe will be limited by increased adverse weather events under climate change. J. R. Soc. Interface, 12(112), 20150721.
Abstract: Ways of increasing the production of wheat, the most widely grown cereal crop, will need to be found to meet the increasing demand caused by human population growth in the coming decades. This increase must occur despite the decrease in yield gains now being reported in some regions, increased price volatility and the expected increase in the frequency of adverse weather events that can reduce yields. However, if and how the frequency of adverse weather events will change over Europe, the most important wheat-growing area, has not yet been analysed. Here, we show that the accumulated probability of 11 adverse weather events with the potential to significantly reduce yield will increase markedly across all of Europe. We found that by the end of the century, the exposure of the key European wheat-growing areas, where most wheat production is currently concentrated, may increase more than twofold. However, if we consider the entire arable land area of Europe, a greater than threefold increase in risk was predicted. Therefore, shifting wheat production to new producing regions to reduce the risk might not be possible as the risk of adverse events beyond the key wheat-growing areas increases even more. Furthermore, we found a marked increase in wheat exposure to high temperatures, severe droughts and field inaccessibility compared with other types of adverse events. Our results also showed the limitations of some of the presently debated adaptation options and demonstrated the need for development of region-specific strategies. Other regions of the world could be affected by adverse weather events in the future in a way different from that considered here for Europe. This observation emphasizes the importance of conducting similar analyses for other major wheat regions.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Bindi, M., Palosuo, T., Trnka, M., & Semenov, M. A. (2015). Modelling climate change impacts on crop production for food security INTRODUCTION. Clim. Res., 65, 3–5.
Abstract: Process-based crop models that synthesise the latest scientific understanding of biophysical processes are currently the primary scientific tools available to assess potential impacts of climate change on crop production. Important obstacles are still present, however, and must be overcome for improving crop modelling application in integrated assessments of risk, of sustainability and of crop-production resilience in the face of climate change (e.g. uncertainty analysis, model integration, etc.). The research networks MACSUR and AGMIP organised the CropM International Symposium and Workshop in Oslo, on 10-12 February 2014, and present this CR Special, discussing the state-of-the-art-as well as future perspectives-of crop modelling applications in climate change risk assessment, including the challenges of integrated assessments for the agricultural sector.
|
|
