|
|
Robinson, S., van Meijl, H., Willenbockel, D., Valin, H., Fujimori, S., Masui, T., et al. (2014). Comparing supply-side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 21–35.
Abstract: This article compares the theoretical and functional specification of production in partial equilibrium (PE) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models of the global agricultural and food system included in the AgMIP model comparison study. The two model families differ in their scopepartial versus economy-wideand in how they represent technology and the behavior of supply and demand in markets. The CGE models are deep structural models in that they explicitly solve the maximization problem of consumers and producers, assuming utility maximization and profit maximization with production/cost functions that include all factor inputs. The PE models divide into two groups on the supply side: (1) shallow structural models, which essentially specify area/yield supply functions with no explicit maximization behavior, and (2) deep structural models that provide a detailed activity-analysis specification of technology and explicit optimizing behavior by producers. While the models vary in their specifications of technology, both within and between the PE and CGE families, we consider two stylized theoretical models to compare the behavior of crop yields and supply functions in CGE models with their behavior in shallow structural PE models. We find that the theoretical responsiveness of supply to changes in prices can be similar, depending on parameter choices that define the behavior of implicit supply functions over the domain of applicability defined by the common scenarios used in the AgMIP comparisons. In practice, however, the applied models are more complex and differ in their empirical sensitivity to variations in specificationcomparability of results given parameter choices is an empirical question. To illustrate the issues, sensitivity analysis is done with one global CGE model, MAGNET, to indicate how the results vary with different specification of technical change, and how they compare with the results from PE models.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Perego, A., Giussani, A., Sanna, M., Fumagalli, M., Carozzi, M., Alfieri, L., et al. (2013). The ARMOSA simulation crop model: overall features, calibration and validation results. Italian Journal of Agrometeorology, 3, 23–38.
Abstract: ARMOSA is a dynamic simulation model which was developed to simulate crop growth and development, water and nitrogen dynamics under different pedoclimatic conditions and cropping systems in the arable land. The model is meant to be a tool for the evaluation of the impact of different crop management practices on soil nitrogen and carbon cycles and groundwater nitrate pollution. A large data set collected over three to six years from six monitoring sites in Lombardia plain was used to calibrate and validate the model parameters. Measured meteorological data, soil chemical and physical characterizations, crop-related data of different cropping systems allowed for a proper parameterization. Fit indexes showed the reliability of the model in adequately predicting crop-related variables, such as above ground biomass (RRMSE=11.18, EF=0.94, r=0.97), Leaf Area Index maximum value (RRMSE=8.24, EF=0.37, r=0.72), harvest index (RRMSE=19.4, EF=0.32, r=0.74), and crop N uptake (RRMSE=20.25, EF=0.69, r=0.85). Using two different one-year data set from each monitoring site, the model was calibrated and validated, getting to encouraging results: RRMSE=6.28, EF=0.52, r=0.68 for soil water content at different depths, and RRMSE=34.89, EF=0.59, r=0.75 for soil NO3-N content along soil profile. The simulated N leaching was in full agreement with measured data (RRMSE=26.62, EF=0.88, r=0.98).
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Zhang, S., Tao, F., & Zhang, Z. (2017). Uncertainty from model structure is larger than that from model parameters in simulating rice phenology in China. Europ. J. Agron., 87, 30–39.
Abstract: Rice models have been widely used in simulating and predicting rice phenology in contrasting climate zones, however the uncertainties from model structure (different equations or models) and/or model parameters were rarely investigated. Here, five rice phenological models/modules (Le., CERES-Rice, ORYZA2000, RCM, Beta Model and SIMRIW) were applied to simulate rice phenology at 23 experimental stations from 1992 to 2009 in two major rice cultivation regions of China: the northeastern China and the southwestern China. To investigate the uncertainties from model biophysical parameters, each model was run with randomly perturbed 50 sets of parameters. The results showed that the median of ensemble simulations were better than the simulation by most models. Models couldn’t simulate well in some specific years despite of parameters optimization, suggesting model structure limit model performance in some cases. The models adopting accumulative thermal time function (e.g., CERES-Rice and ORYZA2000) had better performance in the southwestern China, in contrast, those adopting exponential function (e.g., Beta model and RCM model) had better performance in the northeastern China. In northeastern China, the contribution of model structure and model parameters to model total variance was, respectively, about 55.90% and 44.10% in simulating heading date, and about 75.43% and 24.57% in simulating maturity date. In the southwestern China, the contribution of model structure and model parameters to model total variance was, respectively, about 79.97% and 27.03% in simulating heading date, about 92.15% and 7.85% in simulating maturity date. Uncertainty from model structure was the most relevant source. The results highlight that the temperature response functions of rice development rate under extreme climate conditions should be improved based on environment-controlled experimental data.
|
|
