|
|
Ewert, F., Rötter, R. P., Bindi, M., Webber, H., Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K. C., et al. (2015). Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change. Env. Model. Softw., 72, 287–303.
Abstract: The complexity of risks posed by climate change and possible adaptations for crop production has called for integrated assessment and modelling (IAM) approaches linking biophysical and economic models. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the present state of crop modelling to assess climate change risks to food production and to which extent crop models comply with IAM demands. Considerable progress has been made in modelling effects of climate variables, where crop models best satisfy IAM demands. Demands are partly satisfied for simulating commonly required assessment variables. However, progress on the number of simulated crops, uncertainty propagation related to model parameters and structure, adaptations and scaling are less advanced and lagging behind IAM demands. The limitations are considered substantial and apply to a different extent to all crop models. Overcoming these limitations will require joint efforts, and consideration of novel modelling approaches.
|
|
|
|
Ruiz-Ramos, M., Rodriguez, A., Dosio, A., Goodess, C. M., Harpham, C., Minguez, M. I., et al. (2016). Comparing correction methods of RCM outputs for improving crop impact projections in the Iberian Peninsula for 21st century. Clim. Change, 134(1-2), 283–297.
Abstract: Assessment of climate change impacts on crops in regions of complex orography such as the Iberian Peninsula (IP) requires climate model output which is able to describe accurately the observed climate. The high resolution of output provided by Regional Climate Models (RCMs) is expected to be a suitable tool to describe regional and local climatic features, although their simulation results may still present biases. For these reasons, we compared several post-processing methods to correct or reduce the biases of RCM simulations from the ENSEMBLES project for the IP. The bias-corrected datasets were also evaluated in terms of their applicability and consequences in improving the results of a crop model to simulate maize growth and development at two IP locations, using this crop as a reference for summer cropping systems in the region. The use of bias-corrected climate runs improved crop phenology and yield simulation overall and reduced the inter-model variability and thus the uncertainty. The number of observational stations underlying each reference observational dataset used to correct the bias affected the correction performance. Although no single technique showed to be the best one, some methods proved to be more adequate for small initial biases, while others were useful when initial biases were so large as to prevent data application for impact studies. An initial evaluation of the climate data, the bias correction/reduction method and the consequences for impact assessment would be needed to design the most robust, reduced uncertainty ensemble for a specific combination of location, crop, and crop management.
|
|
|
|
Refsgaard, J. C., Madsen, H., Andréassian, V., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Davidson, T. A., Drews, M., et al. (2014). A framework for testing the ability of models to project climate change and its impacts. Clim. Change, 122(1-2), 271–282.
Abstract: Models used for climate change impact projections are typically not tested for simulation beyond current climate conditions. Since we have no data truly reflecting future conditions, a key challenge in this respect is to rigorously test models using proxies of future conditions. This paper presents a validation framework and guiding principles applicable across earth science disciplines for testing the capability of models to project future climate change and its impacts. Model test schemes comprising split-sample tests, differential split-sample tests and proxy site tests are discussed in relation to their application for projections by use of single models, ensemble modelling and space-time-substitution and in relation to use of different data from historical time series, paleo data and controlled experiments. We recommend that differential-split sample tests should be performed with best available proxy data in order to build further confidence in model projections.
|
|
|
|
Lizaso, J. I., Ruiz-Ramos, M., Rodriguez, L., Gabaldon-Leal, C., Oliveira, J. A., Lorite, I. J., et al. (2017). Modeling the response of maize phenology, kernel set, and yield components to heat stress and heat shock with CSM-IXIM. Field Crops Research, 214, 239–252.
Abstract: The available evidence suggests that the current increasing trend in global surface temperatures will continue during this century, which will be accompanied by a greater frequency of extreme events. The IPCC has projected that higher temperatures may outscore the known optimal and maximum temperatures for maize. The purpose of this study was to improve the ability of the maize model CSM-IXIM to simulate crop development, growth, and yield under hot conditions, especially with regards to the impact of above-optimal temperatures around anthesis. Field and greenhouse experiments that were performed over three years (2014-2016) using the same short-season hybrid, PR37N01 (FAO 300), provided the data for this work. Maize was sown at a target population density of 5 plants M-2 on two sowing dates in 2014 and 2015 and on one in 2016 at three locations in Spain (northern, central, and southern Spain) with a well-defined thermal gradient. The same hybrid was also sown in two greenhouse chambers with daytime target temperatures of approximately 25 and above 35 degrees C. During the nighttime, the temperature in both chambers was allowed to equilibrate with the outside temperature. The greenhouse treatments consisted of moving 18 plants at selected phenological stages (V4, V9, anthesis, lag phase, early grain filling) from the cool chamber to the hot chamber over a week and then returning the plants back to the cool chamber. An additional control treatment remained in the cool chamber all season, and in 2015 and 2016, one treatment remained permanently in the hot chamber. Two maize models in the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) V4.6 were compared, namely CERES and IXIM. The HUM version included additional components that were previously developed to improve the crop N simulation and to incorporate the anthesis-silking interval (ASI). A new thermal time calculation, a heat stress index, the impact of pollen-sterilizing temperatures, and the explicit simulation of male and female flowering as affected by the daily heat conditions were added to IXIM. The phenology simulation in field experiments by IXIM improved substantially. The RMSE for silking and maturity in CERES were 7.9 and 13.7 days, decreasing in DCIM to 2.8 and 7.3 days, respectively. Similarly, the estimated kernel numbers, kernel weight, grain yield and final biomass were always closer to the measurements in HUM than in CERES. The worst simulations were for kernel weight, and for that reason, the differences in grain yield between the models were small (the RMSE in CERES was 1219 kg ha(-1) vs. 1082 kg ha(-1) in IXIM). The greenhouse results also supported the improved estimations of crop development by IXIM (RMSE of 2.6 days) relative to CERES (7.4 days). The impact of the heat treatments on grain yield was consistently overestimated by CERES, while HUM captured the general trend. The new HUM model improved the CERES simulations when elevated temperatures were included in the evaluation data. Additional model testing with measurements from a wider latitudinal range and relevant heat conditions are required.
|
|
|
|
Gabaldón-Leal, C., Webber, H., Otegui, M. E., Slafer, G. A., Ordonez, R. A., Gaiser, T., et al. (2016). Modelling the impact of heat stress on maize yield formation. Field Crops Research, 198, 226–237.
Abstract: The frequency and intensity of extreme high temperature events are expected to increase with climate change. Higher temperatures near anthesis have a large negative effect on maize (Zea mays, L.) grain yield. While crop growth models are commonly used to assess climate change impacts on maize and other crops, it is only recently that they have accounted for such heat stress effects, despite limited field data availability for model evaluation. There is also increasing awareness but limited testing of the importance of canopy temperature as compared to air temperature for heat stress impact simulations. In this study, four independent irrigated field trials with controlled heating imposed using polyethylene shelters were used to develop and evaluate a heat stress response function in the crop modeling framework SIMPLACE, in which the Lintul5 crop model was combined with a canopy temperature model. A dataset from Argentina with the temperate hybrid Nidera AX 842 MG (RM 119) was used to develop a yield reduction function based on accumulated hourly stress thermal time above a critical temperature of 34 degrees C. A second dataset from Spain with a FAO 700 cultivar was used to evaluate the model with daily weather inputs in two sets of simulations. The first was used to calibrate SIMPLACE for conditions with no heat stress, and the second was used to evaluate SIMPLACE under conditions of heat stress using the reduction factor obtained with the Argentine dataset. Both sets of simulations were conducted twice; with the heat stress function alternatively driven with air and simulated canopy temperature. Grain yield simulated under heat stress conditions improved when canopy temperature was used instead of air temperature (RMSE equal to 175 and 309 g m(-2), respectively). For the irrigated and high radiative conditions, raising the critical threshold temperature for heat stress to 39 degrees C improved yield simulation using air temperature (RMSE: 221 gm(-2)) without the need to simulate canopy temperature (RMSE: 175 gm(-2)). However, this approach of adjusting thresholds is only likely to work in environments where climatic variables and the level of soil water deficit are constant, such as irrigated conditions and are not appropriate for rainfed production conditions. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
