|
|
Malone, R. W., Kersebaum, K. C., Kaspar, T. C., Ma, L., Jaynes, D. B., & Gillette, K. (2017). Winter rye as a cover crop reduces nitrate loss to subsurface drainage as simulated by HERMES. Agric. Water Manage., 184, 156–169.
Abstract: HERMES is a widely used agricultural system model; however, it has never been tested for simulating N loss to subsurface drainage. Here, we integrated a simple drain flbw component into HERMES. We then compared the predictions to four years of data (2002-2005) from central Iowa fields in corn-oybean with winter rye as a cover crop (CC) and without winter rye (NCC). We also compared the HERMES predictions to the more complex Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM) predictions for the same dataset. The average annual observed and simulated N loss to drain flow were 43.8 and 44.4 kg N/ha (NCC) and 17.6 and 18.9 kg N/ha (CC). The slightly over predicted N loss for CC was because of over predicted nitrate concentration, which may be partly caused by slightly under predicted average annual rye shoot N (observed and simulated values were 47.8 and 46.0 kg N/ha). Also, recent research from the site suggests that the soil field capacity may be greater in CC while we used the same soil parameters for both treatments. A local sensitivity analysis suggests that increased field capacity affects HERMES simulations, which includes reduced drain flow nitrate concentrations, increased denitrification, and reduced drain flow volume. HERMES-simulated cumulative monthly drain flow and annual drain flow were reasonable compared to field data and HERMES performance was comparable to other published drainage model tests. Unlike the RZWQM simulations, however, the modified HERMES did riot accurately simulate the year to year variability in nitrate concentration difference between NCC and CC, possibly due in part to the lack of partial mixing and displacement of the soil solution. The results suggest that 1) the relatively simple model HERMES is a promising tool to estimate annual N loss to drain flow under corn-soybean rotations with winter rye as a cover crop and 2) soil field capacity is a critical parameter to investigate to more thoroughly understand and appropriately model denitrification and N losses to subsurface drainage. Published by Elsevier B.V.
|
|
|
|
Eitzinger, J., Thaler, S., Schmid, E., Strauss, F., Ferrise, R., Moriondo, M., et al. (2013). Sensitivities of crop models to extreme weather conditions during flowering period demonstrated for maize and winter wheat in Austria. J. Agric. Sci., 151(6), 813–835.
Abstract: The objective of the present study was to compare the performance of seven different, widely applied crop models in predicting heat and drought stress effects. The study was part of a recent suite of model inter-comparisons initiated at European level and constitutes a component that has been lacking in the analysis of sources of uncertainties in crop models used to study the impacts of climate change. There was a specific focus on the sensitivity of models for winter wheat and maize to extreme weather conditions (heat and drought) during the short but critical period of 2 weeks after the start of flowering. Two locations in Austria, representing different agro-climatic zones and soil conditions, were included in the simulations over 2 years, 2003 and 2004, exhibiting contrasting weather conditions. In addition, soil management was modified at both sites by following either ploughing or minimum tillage. Since no comprehensive field experimental data sets were available, a relative comparison of simulated grain yields and soil moisture contents under defined weather scenarios with modified temperatures and precipitation was performed for a 2-week period after flowering. The results may help to reduce the uncertainty of simulated crop yields to extreme weather conditions through better understanding of the models’ behaviour. Although the crop models considered (DSSAT, EPIC, WOFOST, AQUACROP, FASSET, HERMES and CROPSYST) mostly showed similar trends in simulated grain yields for the different weather scenarios, it was obvious that heat and drought stress caused by changes in temperature and/or precipitation for a short period of 2 weeks resulted in different grain yields simulated by different models. The present study also revealed that the models responded differently to changes in soil tillage practices, which affected soil water storage capacity.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Tao, F., Palosuo, T., Roetter, R. P., Hernandez Diaz-Ambrona, C. G., Ines Minguez, M., Semenov, M. A., et al. (2020). Why do crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections? A comprehensive analysis based on eight barley crop models. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 281, 107851.
Abstract: Robust projections of climate impact on crop growth and productivity by crop models are key to designing effective adaptations to cope with future climate risk. However, current crop models diverge strongly in their climate impact projections. Previous studies tried to compare or improve crop models regarding the impact of one single climate variable. However, this approach is insufficient, considering that crop growth and yield are affected by the interactive impacts of multiple climate change factors and multiple interrelated biophysical processes. Here, a new comprehensive analysis was conducted to look holistically at the reasons why crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections and to investigate which biophysical processes and knowledge gaps are key factors affecting this uncertainty and should be given the highest priorities for improvement. First, eight barley models and eight climate projections for the 2050s were applied to investigate the uncertainty from crop model structure in climate impact projections for barley growth and yield at two sites: Jokioinen, Finland (Boreal) and Lleida, Spain (Mediterranean). Sensitivity analyses were then conducted on the responses of major crop processes to major climatic variables including temperature, precipitation, irradiation, and CO2, as well as their interactions, for each of the eight crop models. The results showed that the temperature and CO2 relationships in the models were the major sources of the large discrepancies among the models in climate impact projections. In particular, the impacts of increases in temperature and CO2 on leaf area development were identified as the major causes for the large uncertainty in simulating changes in evapotranspiration, above-ground biomass, and grain yield. Our findings highlight that advancements in understanding the basic processes and thresholds by which climate warming and CO2 increases will affect leaf area development, crop evapotranspiration, photosynthesis, and grain formation in contrasting environments are needed for modeling their impacts.
|
|
