|
|
Mäkinen, H., Kaseva, J., Trnka, M., Balek, J., Kersebaum, K. C., Nendel, C., et al. (2018). Sensitivity of European wheat to extreme weather. Field Crops Research, 222, 209–217.
Abstract: The frequency and intensity of extreme weather is increasing concomitant with changes in the global climate change. Although wheat is the most important food crop in Europe, there is currently no comprehensive empirical information available regarding the sensitivity of European wheat to extreme weather. In this study, we assessed the sensitivity of European wheat yields to extreme weather related to phenology (sowing, heading) in cultivar trials across Europe (latitudes 37.21 degrees to 61.34 degrees and longitudes- 6.02 degrees to 26.24 degrees) during the period 1991-2014. All the observed agro-climatic extremes (>= 31 degrees C, >= 35 degrees C, or drought around heading; >= 35 degrees C from heading to maturity; excessive rainfall; heavy rainfall and low global radiation) led to marked yield penalties in a selected set of European cultivars, whereas few cultivars were found to with no yield penalty in such conditions. There were no European wheat cultivars that responded positively (+ 10%) to drought after sowing, or frost during winter (- 15 degrees C and – 20 degrees C). Positive responses to extremes were often shown by cultivars associated with specific regions, such as good performance under high temperatures by southern-origin cultivars. Consequently, a major future breeding challenge will be to evaluate the potential of combining such cultivar properties with other properties required under different growing conditions with, for example, long day conditions at higher latitudes, when the intensity and frequency of extremes rapidly increase.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Semenov, M. A., & Stratonovitch, P. (2015). Adapting wheat ideotypes for climate change: accounting for uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections. Clim. Res., 65, 123–139.
Abstract: This study describes integration of climate change projections from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) multi-model ensemble with the LARS-WG weather generator, which delivers an attractive option for the downscaling of large-scale climate projections from global climate models (GCMs) to local-scale climate scenarios for impact assessments. A subset of 18 GCMs from the CMIP5 ensemble and 2 Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, were integrated with LARS-WG. For computationally demanding impact assessments, where it is not practical to explore all possible combinations of GCM x RCP, a climate sensitivity index could be used to select a subset of GCMs which preserves the range of uncertainty found in CMIP5. This would allow us to quantify uncertainty in predictions of impacts resulting fromthe CMIP5 ensemble by conducting fewer simulation experiments. In a case study, we describe the use of the Sirius wheat simulation model to design in silico wheat ideotypes that are optimised for future climates in Europe, sampling uncertainty in GCMs, emission scenarios, time periods and European locations with contrasting climates. Two contrasting GCMs were selected for the analysis, ‘hot’ HadGEM2-ES and ‘cool’ GISS-E2-R-CC. Despite large uncertainty in future climate projections, we were able to identify target traits for wheat improvement which may assist breeding for high-yielding wheat cultivars with increased yield stability.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
