| Home | << 1 2 3 4 >> |
|
Eyshi Rezaei, E., Siebert, S., & Ewert, F. (2015). Impact of data resolution on heat and drought stress simulated for winter wheat in Germany. European Journal of Agronomy, 65, 69–82.
Abstract: Heat and drought stress can reduce crop yields considerably which is increasingly assessed with crop models for larger areas. Applying these models originally developed for the field scale at large spatial extent typically implies the use of input data with coarse resolution. Little is known about the effect of data resolution on the simulated impact of extreme events like heat and drought on crops. Hence, in this study the effect of input and output data aggregation on simulated heat and drought stress and their impact on yield of winter wheat is systematically analyzed. The crop model SIMPLACE was applied for the period 1980-2011 across Germany at a resolution of 1 km x 1 km. Weather and soil input data and model output data were then aggregated to 10 km x 10 km, 25 km x 25 km, 50 km x 50 km and 100 km x 100 km resolution to analyze the aggregation effect on heat and drought stress and crop yield. We found that aggregation of model input and output data barely influenced the mean and median of heat and drought stress reduction factors and crop yields simulated across Germany. However, data aggregation resulted in less spatial variability of model results and a reduced severity of simulated stress events, particularly for regions with high heterogeneity in weather and soil conditions. Comparisons of simulations at coarse resolution with those at high resolution showed distinct patterns of positive and negative deviations which compensated each other so that aggregation effects for large regions were small for mean or median yields. Therefore, modelling at a resolution of 100 km x 100 km was sufficient to determine mean wheat yield as affected by heat and drought stress for Germany. Further research is required to clarify whether the results can be generalized across crop models differing in structure and detail. Attention should also be given to better understand the effect of data resolution on interactions between heat and drought impacts. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
Eyshi Rezaei, E., Webber, H., Gaiser, T., Naab, J., & Ewert, F. (2015). Heat stress in cereals: Mechanisms and modelling. European Journal of Agronomy, 64, 98–113.
Abstract: Increased climate variability and higher mean temperatures are expected across many world regions, both of which will contribute to more frequent extreme high temperatures events. Empirical evidence increasingly shows that short episodes of high temperature experienced around flowering can have large negative impacts on cereal grain yields, a phenomenon increasingly referred to as heat stress. Crop models are currently the best tools available to investigate how crops will grow under future climatic conditions, though the need to include heat stress effects has been recognized only relatively recently. We reviewed literature on both how key crop physiological processes and the observed yields under production conditions are impacted by high temperatures occurring particularly in the flowering and grain filling phases for wheat, maize and rice. This state of the art in crop response to heat stress was then contrasted with generic approaches to simulate the impacts of high temperatures in crop growth models. We found that the observed impacts of heat stress on crop yield are the end result of the integration of many processes, not all of which will be affected by a “high temperature” regime. This complexity confirms an important role for crop models in systematizing the effects of high temperatures on many processes under a range of environments and realizations of crop phenology. Four generic approaches to simulate high temperature impacts on yield were identified: (1) empirical reduction of final yield, (2) empirical reduction in daily increment in harvest index, (3) empirical reduction in grain number, and (4) semi-deterministic models of sink and source limitation. Consideration of canopy temperature is suggested as a promising approach to concurrently account for heat and drought stress, which are likely to occur simultaneously. Improving crop models’ response to high temperature impacts on cereal yields will require experimental data representative of field production and should be designed to connect what is already known about physiological responses and observed yield impacts. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: high temperature; heat stress; cereal yield; climate change impact; crop modelling; high-temperature stress; tropical maize hybrids; triticum-aestivum l; high-yielding rice; induced spikelet sterility; stem reserve mobilization; climate-change impacts; oryza-sativa l.; grain-yield; kernel set
|
|
Tao, F., Zhang, Z., Zhang, S., & Rötter, R. P. (2015). Heat stress impacts on wheat growth and yield were reduced in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain of China in the past three decades. European Journal of Agronomy, 71, 44–52.
Abstract: Heat stress impacts on crop growth and yield have been investigated by controlled-environment experiments, however little is known about the impacts under field conditions at large spatial and temporal scales, particularly in a setting with farmers’ autonomous adaptations. Here, using detailed experiment Observations at 34 national agricultural meteorological stations spanning from 1981 to 2009 in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain (HHHP) of China, we investigated the changes in climate and heat stress during wheat reproductive growing period (from heading to maturity) and the impacts of climate change and heat stress on reproductive growing duration (RGD) and yield in a setting with farmers’ autonomous adaptations. We found that RGD and growing degree days above 0 degrees C (GDD) from heading to maturity increased, which increased yield by similar to 14.85%, although heat stress had negative impacts on RGD and yield. During 1981-2009, high temperature (>34 degrees C) degree days (HDD) increased in the northern part, however decreased in the middle and southern parts of HHHP due to advances in heading and maturity dates. Change in HDD, together with increase in GDD and decrease in solar radiation (SRD), jointly increased wheat yield in the northern and middle parts but reduced it in the southern part of HHHP. During the study period, increase in GDD and decrease in SRD had larger impacts on yield than change in HDD. However, with climate warming of 2 degrees C, damage of heat stress on yield may offset a large portion of the benefits from increases in RGD and GDD, and eventually result in net negative impacts on yield in the northern part of HHHP. Our study showed that shifts in cultivars and wheat production system dynamics in the past three decades reduced heat stress impacts in the HHHP. The insights into crop response and adaptation to climate change and climate extremes provide excellent evidences and basis for improving climate change impact study and designing adaptation measures for the future. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|