|
|
Van Oijen, M., & Höglind, M. (2016). Toward a Bayesian procedure for using process-based models in plant breeding, with application to ideotype design. Euphytica, 207(3), 627–643.
Abstract: Process-based grassland models (PBMs) simulate growth and development of vegetation over time. The models tend to have a large number of parameters that represent properties of the plants. To simulate different cultivars of the same species, different parameter values are required. Parameter differences may be interpreted as genetic variation for plant traits. Despite this natural connection between PBMs and plant genetics, there are only few examples of successful use of PBMs in plant breeding. Here we present a new procedure by which PBMs can help design ideotypes, i.e. virtual cultivars that optimally combine properties of existing cultivars. Ideotypes constitute selection targets for breeding. The procedure consists of four steps: (1) Bayesian calibration of model parameters using data from cultivar trials, (2) Estimating genetic variation for parameters from the combination of cultivar-specific calibrated parameter distributions, (3) Identifying parameter combinations that meet breeding objectives, (4) Translating model results to practice, i.e. interpreting parameters in terms of practical selection criteria. We show an application of the procedure to timothy (Phleum pratense L.) as grown in different regions of Norway.
|
|
|
|
Bellocchi, G., Rivington, M., Matthews, K., & Acutis, M. (2015). Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review. Agron. Sust. Developm., 35(2), 589–605.
Abstract: The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Mearns, L. O., Ruane, A. C., Rötter, R. P., & Asseng, S. (2016). Lessons from climate modeling on the design and use of ensembles for crop modeling. Clim. Change, 139(3-4), 551–564.
Abstract: Working with ensembles of crop models is a recent but important development in crop modeling which promises to lead to better uncertainty estimates for model projections and predictions, better predictions using the ensemble mean or median, and closer collaboration within the modeling community. There are numerous open questions about the best way to create and analyze such ensembles. Much can be learned from the field of climate modeling, given its much longer experience with ensembles. We draw on that experience to identify questions and make propositions that should help make ensemble modeling with crop models more rigorous and informative. The propositions include defining criteria for acceptance of models in a crop MME, exploring criteria for evaluating the degree of relatedness of models in a MME, studying the effect of number of models in the ensemble, development of a statistical model of model sampling, creation of a repository for MME results, studies of possible differential weighting of models in an ensemble, creation of single model ensembles based on sampling from the uncertainty distribution of parameter values or inputs specifically oriented toward uncertainty estimation, the creation of super ensembles that sample more than one source of uncertainty, the analysis of super ensemble results to obtain information on total uncertainty and the separate contributions of different sources of uncertainty and finally further investigation of the use of the multi-model mean or median as a predictor.
|
|
|
|
Bai, H., Tao, F., Xiao, D., Liu, F., & Zhang, H. (2016). Attribution of yield change for rice-wheat rotation system in China to climate change, cultivars and agronomic management in the past three decades. Clim. Change, 135(3-4), 539–553.
Abstract: Using the detailed field experiment data from 1981 to 2009 at four representative agro-meteorological experiment stations in China, along with the Agricultural Production System Simulator (APSIM) rice-wheat model, we evaluated the impact of sowing/transplanting date on phenology and yield of rice-wheat rotation system (RWRS). We also disentangled the contributions of climate change, modern cultivars, sowing/transplanting density and fertilization management, as well as changes in each climate variables, to yield change in RWRS, in the past three decades. We found that change in sowing/transplanting date did not significantly affect rice and wheat yield in RWRS, although alleviated the negative impact of climate change to some extent. From 1981 to 2009, climate change jointly caused rice and wheat yield change by -17.4 to 1.5 %, of which increase in temperature reduced yield by 0.0-5.8 % and decrease in solar radiation reduced it by 1.5-8.7 %. Cultivars renewal, modern sowing/transplanting density and fertilization management contributed to yield change by 14.4-27.2, -4.7- -0.1 and 2.3-22.2 %, respectively. Our findings highlight that modern cultivars and agronomic management compensated the negative impacts of climate change and played key roles in yield increase in the past three decades.
|
|
|
|
Cortignani, R., & Dono, G. (2015). Simulation of the impact of greening measures in an agricultural area of the southern Italy. Land Use Policy, 48, 525–533.
Abstract: Together, sustainable management of natural resources and climate action form one of the three objectives of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy. This objective is being addressed by replacing the existing direct payments under Pillar 1 with a basic payment, combined with an additional payment conditional on farmers undertaking agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment, a policy referred to as greening. In this study, the impact of greening was assessed using a hybrid model calibrated using positive mathematical programming. The model describes the macro-types of farm production in a Mediterranean agricultural area. The results show that greening was not beneficial throughout the study area and only some farm types have been particularly affected. However, greening appears to have a positive impact on curtailing the use of chemicals, particularly nitrogen, and on crop diversity. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
